Hi Warren, We will post the text by tomorrow.
Regards Sri On 8/15/17, 10:46 AM, "Warren Kumari" <[email protected]> wrote: >This document is on Thursday's telechat - I have not seen proposed >text to address my concerns, and so I'm continuing to hold my DISCUSS >position. > >W > >On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:18 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hello >> >> Please see inline >> >> Pierrick >> >> >> >> Sent from my cell phone, mind the typos. >> >> -------- Message d'origine -------- >> De : Warren Kumari <[email protected]> >> Date : 02/08/2017 22:23 (GMT+01:00) >> À : The IESG <[email protected]> >> Cc : [email protected], Jouni Korhonen >> <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], >> [email protected] >> Objet : Warren Kumari's Discuss on draft-ietf-dmm-mag-multihoming-04: >>(with >> DISCUSS) >> >> Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-dmm-mag-multihoming-04: Discuss >> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >> introductory paragraph, however.) >> >> >> Please refer to >>https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >> >> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmm-mag-multihoming/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> DISCUSS: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Section 3.2. Traffic distribution schemes >> "Per-packet management: the LMA and the MAG distribute packets, >>belonging to >> a >> same IP flow, over more than one bindings (i.e. more than one WAN >> interface)." >> This immediately made my out-of-order-packets antenna pop up, so I read >>the >> section looking for mitigations. The very next sentence reads: "Packet >> distribution can be done either at the transport level, e.g. using >>MPTCP or >> at >> When operating at the IP packet level, different packets distribution >> algorithms are possible. " -- the fact that this sentence is a: >>malformed >> and >> b: hand-wavy did nothing to allay my concerns, so I read further: "The >> distribution algorithm is left to implementer but whatever the >>algorithm is, >> packets distribution likely introduces packet latency and out-of-order >> delivery. LMA and MAG shall thus be able to make reordering before >>packets >> delivery." - I agree with the first sentence (although it is poorly >>worded), >> but the second sentence doesn't follow from the first; "shall thus be >>able >> to" >> implies that the prior text somehow provides a solution, not points out >>a >> problem (the sentence is also malformed)-- I think you mean something >>like >> "The >> LMA and MAG thus need to be able reorder packets to their original order >> before >> delivery." >> >> This then continues with "Sequence number can be can be used for that >> purpose, >> for example using GRE with sequence number option [RFC5845]." - I think >>that >> the actual reference should be RFC2890, but regardless of this, I don't >> think >> that what you are proposing works - "The Sequence Number field is used >>to >> maintain sequence of packets **within** the GRE Tunnel." (from RFC2890, >> emphasis added). This means that sequence numbers are local to the >>tunnel, >> and >> (as I understand it) your solution involves diverse tunnels. Further, >> Section >> 2.2. Sequence Number says: "The receiver may perform a small amount of >> buffering in an attempt to recover the original sequence of transmitted >> packets. In this case, the packet may be placed in a buffer sorted by >> sequence >> number." - if you are proposing using a single sequence number space for >> multiple tunnels, you will end up with sequence number space gabs, and >>lots >> of >> buffering, etc. The section ends with: "However, more detailed >> considerations >> on reordering and IP packet distribution scheme (e.g. definition of >>packets >> distribution algorithm) are out the scope of this document." - I think >>that, >> unless the prior paragraph is significantly reworked, it should not try >>and >> suggest any mitigations. >> >>>> ok >> >> The whole idea of striping packets of a flow across (notably) different >> transports seems like a really bad idea to me -- is it actually needed? >> >>>> some use-cases implement per-packet distribution. However this >>>>document >>>> does not aim to make recommendation on the way to distribute packets >> >> >> >>_________________________________________________________________________ >>________________________________________________ >> >> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations >> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc >> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez >>recu >> ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler >> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages >> electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, >> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme >>ou >> falsifie. Merci. >> >> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged >> information that may be protected by law; >> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. >> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and >> delete this message and its attachments. >> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have >>been >> modified, changed or falsified. >> Thank you. > > > >-- >I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad >idea in the first place. >This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing >regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair >of pants. > ---maf _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
