Dear Matt,
Thank you for your review!
We added QUIC to the draft during one of the BMWG sessions based on
suggestions from the attendees. The authors are a bit unsure how to fix
the draft that's up for approval so that it would be precise and fully
compliant with QUIC environments.
Do you have any specific suggestions how to correct the text, keeping
QUIC in scope?
Alternatively, we could remove QUIC references and take it out of scope
and cover it in a future amendment. Not the best solution, but after
more than three years of drafting with so many contributors, we would
like to avoid opening a new discussion area that would likely delay the
work by another year.
Best regards, Carsten
Am 2/1/2022 um 5:40 PM schrieb Matt Joras via Datatracker:
Reviewer: Matt Joras
Review result: Ready with Issues
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
For more information, please see the FAQ at
<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance-13
Reviewer: Matt Joras
Review Date: 2022-01-31
IETF LC End Date: 2021-12-29
IESG Telechat date: 2022-02-03
Nits/editorial comments:
Section 4.3.1.1
This section details TCP stack attributes in great detail. However,
subsequently HTTP/3 and QUIC are both mentioned in 4.3.1.3.. QUIC is in need of
tuning just as much as TCP, if not more.
" HTTP/3 emulated browser uses QUIC ([RFC9000]) as transport protocol." should
be reworded, and I'm not exactly sure what it is trying to convey.
"Depending on test scenarios and selected HTTP version, HTTP header compression
MAY be set to enable or disable." should probably read " be enabled or
disabled."
Similarly in sections 7, there is a lot of specific mention of TCP connections,
TCP RSTs, FINs, etc. and continued mentioning of HTTP. Since QUIC is a
significant carrier of HTTP traffic it seems these sections should not be so
specific to TCP. Especially since it seems as though for these kinds of devices
their limits may very well be different for UDP or TCP flows.
--
Carsten Rossenhövel
Managing Director, EANTC AG (European Advanced Networking Test Center)
Salzufer 14, 10587 Berlin, Germany
office +49.30.3180595-21, fax +49.30.3180595-10, mobile +49.177.2505721
cross@xxxxxxxx, https://www.eantc.de
Place of Business/Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin, Germany
Chairman/Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Herbert Almus
Managing Directors/Vorstand: Carsten Rossenhövel, Gabriele Schrenk
Registered: HRB 73694, Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, Berlin, Germany
EU VAT No: DE812824025
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
