[apps-discuss] Applications Area Directorate review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-byte-pkt-congest-09

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Thu, 28 March 2013 04:48 UTC

Return-Path: <tbray@textuality.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7C8C21F92A7 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 21:48:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.957
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.957 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_22=0.6, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5h7eZkf1gb-t for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 21:48:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x229.google.com (mail-la0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCB8521F92AB for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 21:47:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f41.google.com with SMTP id fo12so16996706lab.28 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 21:47:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:x-originating-ip:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=Hw1TRxX5ba/QkkHcIHtIjaKPCAKKG9jYBe9/ZvxdunM=; b=NfzospgksHeG2rgnS81uOcF7SoUN8SaZhLmW1HiBZKaiQTuRMOk/ZedWD22cVkdY8H GiUmmg4BHHsQbIn6I7LzRVoS9a0MJYdBsc4HuGOQNakROewuRRMupGXYuFxGABDBqHon VW+NHvBP2apXDbRhOFKjKFPSc6bxalmSH21Y9y1NGmeHqLtvlLQ5W5Y7kmTxbFs9oYKt d8qB1kbVfLd4oNP/NIUC4qUnqF5oh6lNhEhG+4EpyRBDVjXQKSjpFiNUT706OGkkmCD1 y2jbDtWspz2zR6EgoF2fEnvgTTpnMIzWZYJGxhSY0qKYqFO9ggPFO/Vn7mnUdnjP4Ztm 65aQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id s2mr11218330lbt.111.1364446074493; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 21:47:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 21:47:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: []
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 21:47:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHBU6iubrVQa+AJFZnLXrArN21yjJUWsNaKuF-rnxyGGFKjYRQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
To: draft-ietf-tsvwg-byte-pkt-congest.all@tools.ietf.org, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="90e6ba30941e95e50804d8f4dbe6"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmjcFddxCcZbq5Nn8f7Pdx9BpKeQ2ytE7mAn1lJJIqwmfOqTwhuE/CV/UIGNyxd/3so5/Ve
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: [apps-discuss] Applications Area Directorate review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-byte-pkt-congest-09
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 04:48:02 -0000

I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for this
draft (for background on appsdir, please see

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-tsvwg-byte-pkt-congest-09
Title: Byte and Packet Congestion Notification
Reviewer: Tim Bray
Review Date: March 8, 2013

I lack expertise in the subject matter, so can only comment on the
exposition and clarity.  Since I, not a subject-matter expert, think I
understood the analysis, and actually enjoyed reading it. I believe this
draft is pretty well ready for publication, assuming subject matter experts
agree with its analysis and conclusions.

Major issues: None
Minor issues: None


1. Introduction
I had a little trouble parsing “... how we should correctly scale
congestion control functions with packet size...” I guess “scale A with B”
is a little bit nonstandard grammar. Do you mean “scale A as a function of
B” or “scale A as B increases” or what?

s/notifying congestion/notifying of congestion/

s/notifies its level of congestion/notifies of its level of congestion/

s/byte-size/size/ in general, right?  How else would one measure size?

Might it be smart, in the spirit of tl;dr, to move Section 8 to near the
front of the document?   For example, the answers “it depends”, “no”, and
“yes”, are too far from the questions.