Re: Re: Fwd: RE: Fwd: Re: authors 48 hours: RFC 3289<draft-ietf-diffserv-mib-16.txt> NOW AVAILABLE
Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> Sun, 01 Sep 2002 15:54:06 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.diffserv |
|---|---|
| Organization | IBM |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Dan, if it was just clarifications maybe... but this is errata, hence we choose between the RFC-Ed errata page or a new RFC. Brian Dan Grossman wrote: > > Why don't we do with the MIB what we did with RFC 2474, 2475, 2597 and 2598: start a draft > (can a concluded WG have a WG draft?) that captures clarifications to the MIB? > > Andrew Smith wrote: > > > I'm not convinced that now is the right time to be updating this MIB > > and/or the RFC that includes it. Some of Tom Irwin's first set of > > comments fix errors but some (and all of his second set of comments) are > > clarifications, as were most of mine from May 3th 2002 (below). If we > > must, then I'd suggest just fixing the syntax errors in the MIB module. > > But don't things like this usually wait for a "natural" refresh cycle > > e.g. an attempt to move an RFC to Draft standard? I'd hate to > > destabilise anyone's plans to implement the current RFC. We've got > > published/archived fixes on the record so I don't see the urgency to > > update (other than tidiness). And it's quite likely that we'd be able to > > remove 20 pages or more with the benefit of another year or so more > > implementation experience. > > > > Just my thoughts - I don't have any significant stake in any current > > implementation plans so it really ought to be up to others to say what > > they want done. > > > > Andrew Smith > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > > Of Fred Baker > > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 6:35 PM > > To: Kwok Ho Chan > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > > Subject: [Diffserv] Re: Fwd: RE: Fwd: Re: authors 48 hours: RFC > > 3289<draft-ietf-diffserv-mib-16.txt> NOW AVAILABLE > > > > At 07:45 PM 8/29/2002 -0400, Kwok Ho Chan wrote: > > >Fred: > > >Are you referring to the attached E-Mail? > > > > yes. I would like all comments edited into the new document to have at > > least been seen by the working group. I don't think we'll get a lot of > > commentary, but people should have the opportunity. > > > > >-- Kwok -- > > > > > >>From: "Andrew Smith" <[email protected]> > > >>To: "Brian E Carpenter" <[email protected]>, "Fred Baker" > > >><[email protected]>, > > >> "Chan, Kwok-Ho [BL60:470:EXCH]"<[email protected]> > > >>Cc: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, > > >> "Dan Grossman" <[email protected]> > > >>Subject: RE: Fwd: Re: authors 48 hours: RFC > > >>3289<draft-ietf-diffserv-mib-16.txt> NOW AVAILABLE > > >>Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 12:20:51 -0700 > > >>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) > > >>Importance: Normal > > >>X-SMTP-HELO: falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net > > >>X-SMTP-MAIL-FROM: [email protected] > > >>X-SMTP-RCPT-TO: [email protected] > > >>X-SMTP-PEER-INFO: falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.74] > > >> > > >>I just found out about the "48 hours" today: most of these comments > > are > > >>probably (way) too late but there are some editorial things buried in > > here > > >>that might be helpful at this late stage: > > >> > > >>Please change my contact info: > > >> OLD: > > >> > > >> A. Smith > > >> Allegro > > Networks > > >> NEW: > > >> A. Smith > > >> Harbour > > Networks > > >> > > >>11. Authors' Addresses > > >> > > >>OLD: > > >> Andrew Smith > > >> Allegro Networks > > >> 6399 San Ignacio Ave > > >> San Jose, CA 95119 > > >> > > >> EMail: [email protected] > > >> NEW: > > >> Andrew Smith > > >> Harbour Networks > > >> Jiuling Building > > >> 21 North Xisanhuan Ave. > > >> Beijing, 100089, PRC > > >> > > >> EMail: [email protected] > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>3.5.3. diffServMinRateTable - The Minimum Rate Table: The description > > (both > > >>here and in the comments in the MIB module and in the DESCRIPTION > > clauses) > > >>is unclear on when the Rate and when the Priority parameters are to be > > used > > >>and what is their combined effect: > > >> > > >> "When the output rate of a queue or scheduler must be given a > > minimum > > >> rate or a priority, this is done using the diffServMinRateTable. > > >> Rates may be expressed as absolute rates, or as a fraction of > > >> ifSpeed, and imply the use of a rate-based scheduler such as WFQ > > or > > >> WRR. The use of a priority implies the use of a Priority > > Scheduler. > > >> Only one of the Absolute or Relative rates needs to be set; the > > other > > >> takes the relevant value as a result. Excess capacity is > > distributed > > >> proportionally among the inputs to a scheduler using the assured > > >> rate. More complex functionality may be described by augmenting > > this > > >> MIB." > > >> > > >>I thought that the type of scheduler was implied by > > diffServSchedulerMethod, > > >>not by "use of a priority". And if you're doing strict priority > > scheduling, > > >>neither of Absolute or Relative rates needs to be set, right? Text > > above > > >>seems to imply otherwise. See also below. > > >> > > >>3.5.5 There's no reference to figure 4. Perhaps it should be from the > > >>paragraph at the bottom of p18? > > >> > > >>3.5.5 Is there a way to keep this set of diagrams closer to (in-line > > with) > > >>the text describing them, or at least, on the same page? I know it > > wastes > > >>paper/bytes but would add to clarity. > > >> > > >>3.5.5 I find some of this relatively new text confusing (this is the > > first > > >>time I've seen it so tell me if I'm too late with the following > > comments). > > >>Specifically: > > >> > > >> "For representing a Strict Priority scheduler, each scheduler > > input is > > >> assigned a priority with respect to all the other inputs feeding > > the > > >> same scheduler, with default values for the other parameters. > > >> Higher-priority traffic that is not being delayed for shaping will > > be > > >> serviced before a lower-priority input. An example is found in > > >> Figure 2." > > >> > > >>Clearer (or, at least, more accurate) is: > > >> > > >> "For representing a Strict Priority scheduler, the > > >>diffServSchedulerMethod is set to diffServSchedulerPriority and the > > >>prededing queue or scheduler feeding this scheduler input is assigned > > a > > >>priority in its associated diffServMinRateEntry with respect to all > > the > > >>other inputs feeding the same scheduler (the value of the other > > parameters > > >>in this entry are irrelevant). Traffic from higher-priority inputs to > > this > > >>scheduler will be serviced before that from lower-priority inputs. An > > >>example is found in Figure 2." > > >> > > >>Figures 3, 4 and 5: suggest you use more specific labels in some of > > the > > >>boxes to remove confusion: > > >>- figure 3, replace "Rate" with "MaxRate" in each box; > > >>- figure 4, put something in the empty boxes e.g. "n/a" or leave them > > out. > > >>Replace "Shaping Rate" with "MaxRate" - we have no parameter called > > shaping > > >>rate. > > >> > > >>3.5.5: suggest you lose the NOTE and its text, just above figure 4, or > > at > > >>least join it up with the following paragraph. > > >> > > >>3.5.5: last paragraph should be part of 3.6 really. And glue Figure 6 > > to > > >>this paragraph for clarity. > > >> > > >>3.6: change "four AF classes" to "four AF classes, each with 3 levels > > of > > >>drop precedence or 'colours'". We must be clear that this is just an > > example > > >>of an AF implementation that chooses to do 4 classes, each with 3 > > colours. > > >> > > >>3.6: Suggest you use the same example scenario for figures 6 and 7 - > > it's > > >>confusing to use different example scenarios. Figure 7 introduces a > > new kind > > >>of "hybrid" notation for the first time (we've always gone > > left-to-right > > >>before, not top-to-bottom - I preferred the former for clarity): I > > suggest > > >>it needs some words to explain the notation (rhetorical questions: > > what do > > >>the lines imply when they don't have arrowheads? what are the 2 or 3 > > >>different lines exiting from the meters? These are all deducible from > > the > > >>following text but it's made harder work due to the new notation. BTW, > > >>there's an arrow missing out of the back/bottom/right Action box. > > >> > > >>3.6: suggest you add the "everything else" case that you discuss in > > the text > > >>to figure 7. > > >> > > >>3.6.: there's no reference to figure 7 in the text. > > >> > > >>3.6 and 3.7: actually, I'm not sure why these sections are here in > > this > > >>document - a few years ago, we took out similar "tutorial" material > > and put > > >>it in the Model draft. There's nothing in these sections that is > > specific to > > >>the MIB. The right thing to have in this document is the "translation" > > of an > > >>example like this into the structures and linkages used by the MIB but > > these > > >>sections do not help with this. We had such material in draft-09 and > > it has > > >>disappeared (I'm not saying 3.6 and 3.7 aren't useful material but it > > just > > >>does not belong in this document) - I think this is a backward step. > > >> > > >>Anyhow, I'm probably too late to the party with most of these comments > > - I > > >>should have reviewed it when the IESG last call was in progress (I > > didn't > > >>realise so much had changed since -09 which was the last version that > > I > > >>reviewed properly). > > >> > > >>Andrew > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>-----Original Message----- > > >>From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[email protected]] > > >>Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 5:56 AM > > >>To: Fred Baker > > >>Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Andrew > > Smith; > > >>Kwok Ho Chan > > >>Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: authors 48 hours: RFC > > >>3289<draft-ietf-diffserv-mib-16.txt> NOW AVAILABLE > > >> > > >> > > >>OK, in view of Kwok's response we can give it another day or say, but > > >>then... > > >> > > >> Brian > > >> > > >>Fred Baker wrote: > > >> > > > >> > You may need to make an executive decision here. Andrew and Kwok > > are AWOL. > > >> > > > >> > >Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 19:50:58 GMT > > >> > >To: [email protected], [email protected] > > >> > >Subject: Re: authors 48 hours: RFC 3289 > > >> > > <draft-ietf-diffserv-mib-16.txt> NOW AVAILABLE > > >> > >Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], > > >> > > [email protected], [email protected] > > >> > >From: [email protected] > > >> > >X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII > > >> > > > > >> > >Kwok Ho and Andrew, > > >> > > > > >> > >We still have not heard from you regarding this document. Please > > let > > >> > >us know if there are any corrections required. > > >> > > > > >> > >We are waiting to hear from you. > > >> > > > > >> > >RFC Editor > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >----- Begin Included Message ----- > > >> > > > > >> > > >From [email protected] Thu May 23 16:22:59 2002 > > >> > >Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 23:22:45 GMT > > >> > >To: [email protected], [email protected] > > >> > >Subject: Re: authors 48 hours: RFC 3289 > > >> > > <draft-ietf-diffserv-mib-16.txt> NOW AVAILABLE > > >> > >Cc: [email protected], [email protected], > > >>[email protected], > > >> > > [email protected], [email protected] > > >> > >From: [email protected] > > >> > >X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII > > >> > >X-AntiVirus: scanned by AMaViS 0.2.1 > > >> > >Content-Length: 3636 > > >> > > > > >> > >Kwok Ho and Andrew, > > >> > > > > >> > >Please let us know if the document is ready to be published. > > >> > > > > >> > >We are awaiting your reply. > > >> > > > > >> > >Thank you. > > >> > > > > >> > >RFC Editor > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > From [email protected] Tue May 21 09:25:15 2002 > > >> > > > Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 16:24:54 GMT > > >> > > > To: [email protected], [email protected] > > >> > > > Subject: Re: authors 48 hours: RFC 3289 > > >> > > > <draft-ietf-diffserv-mib-16.txt> NOW AVAILABLE > > >> > > > Cc: [email protected], [email protected], > > >>[email protected], > > >> > > > [email protected], [email protected] > > >> > > > From: [email protected] > > >> > > > X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII > > >> > > > X-AntiVirus: scanned by AMaViS 0.2.1 > > >> > > > Content-Length: 2866 > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Authors, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > We have not heard any further from you regarding this document. > > We > > >> > > > would appreciate a confirmation that the document is ready to > > be > > >> > > > published as it now appears at: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/authors/rfc3289.txt > > >> > > > > > >> > > > We will wait to hear from you before continuing on. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Thank you. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > RFC Editor > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > From [email protected] Mon May 13 11:51:19 2002 > > >> > > > > Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 18:50:53 GMT > > >> > > > > To: [email protected], [email protected] > > >> > > > > Subject: Re: authors 48 hours: RFC 3289 > > >> > > > > <draft-ietf-diffserv-mib-16.txt> NOW AVAILABLE > > >> > > > > Cc: [email protected], [email protected], > > >> > > [email protected], > > >> > > > > [email protected], [email protected] > > >> > > > > From: [email protected] > > >> > > > > X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII > > >> > > > > X-AntiVirus: scanned by AMaViS 0.2.1 > > >> > > > > Content-Length: 1984 > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Fred, > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Thank you for bringing this to our attention. It now parses > > >> > > > > successfully. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > We have updated your contact information in the authors > > address > > >> > > > > section, as well as within the mib. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Please let us know if there are any further corrections > > required. > > >>We > > >> > > > > will wait to hear from you. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Thank you. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > RFC editor > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > From [email protected] Fri May 10 01:03:56 2002 > > >> > > > > > X-Sender: [email protected] > > >> > > > > > X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 > > >> > > > > > Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 16:03:24 +0800 > > >> > > > > > To: [email protected] > > >> > > > > > From: Fred Baker <[email protected]> > > >> > > > > > Subject: Re: authors 48 hours: RFC 3289 > > >> > > > > > <draft-ietf-diffserv-mib-16.txt> NOW AVAILABLE > > >> > > > > > Cc: [email protected], [email protected], > > >> > > > > > [email protected], [email protected], > > [email protected], > > >> > > > > > [email protected] > > >> > > > > > Mime-Version: 1.0 > > >> > > > > > X-AntiVirus: scanned by AMaViS 0.2.1 > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > At 10:37 PM 5/9/2002 +0000, [email protected] > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >FYI: > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >W: f(rfc3289.mi2), (42,1) Textual convention "Dscp" > > defined but > > >> > > not used > > >> > > > > > >W: f(rfc3289.mi2), (52,1) Textual convention "DscpOrAny" > > defined > > >>but > > >> > > > > > >not used > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > these two warnings come up because the TCs are in a > > separate MIB > > >> > > Module > > >> > > > > > from the main mib, and are imported into it. They are fine. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > My contact information has changed slightly; I have a new > > physical > > >> > > address. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>/===================================================================== > > / > > >> > > > > > | Fred Baker | 1121 Via Del > > Rey > > >>| > > >> > > > > > | Cisco Fellow | Santa Barbara, > > >>California | > > >> > > > > > +--------------------------------+ 93117 USA > > >>| > > >> > > > > > | Nothing will ever be attempted,| phone: +1-805-681-0115 > > >>| > > >> > > > > > | if all possible objections must| fax: +1-413-473-2403 > > >>| > > >> > > > > > | be first overcome. | > > >>| > > >> > > > > > | Dr. Johnson, Rasselas, 1759| > > >>| > > >> > > > > > > > >>/===================================================================== > > / > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >----- End Included Message ----- > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > diffserv mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv > > Archive: > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/diffserv/current/maillis > > t.html > > > > _______________________________________________ > > diffserv mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv > > Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/diffserv/current/maillist.html > > _______________________________________________ > diffserv mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv > Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/diffserv/current/maillist.html -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Brian E Carpenter Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM On assignment at the IBM Zurich Laboratory, Switzerland _______________________________________________ diffserv mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/diffserv/current/maillist.html