Re: [conex] I-D Action: draft-ietf-conex-concepts-uses-03.txt

[John Leslie <[e-mail]>]

Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> A new version of draft-ietf-conex-concepts-uses has been submitted...

   My congratulations!

   Alissa seems to have had many of the same arguments with Bob that
I used to have -- and she prevailed!

   I will send Alissa some purely editorial suggestions: she should
share them with the other editors as appropriate.

> The editors have a few outstanding issues that we will be raising
> for discussion on the mailing list, but for now we are looking
> forward to your reviews and feedback.

   I have several issues which deserve discussion here.

   concepts-uses still ventures farther into mechanism than I'd wish:

   - "the ConEx Field" implies mechanism; I suggest "ConEx marking".

   - "Congestion" vs. "Congestion Volume" needs work. I think I'll do
     a separate email on that.

   - "Network provider (or operator)" doesn't work as a definition:
     I suggest defining "Network Operator (or Provider), and fixing
     the various places which use these words ambiguously.

   - The "User" definiton hides something a bit counter-intuitive:
     that the sending user is known in some places, the receiving
     user in others, and neither is knowable in the middle. While
     the definiton here is probably as good as we can get, I'm
     afraid our readers will be confused.

   - "Congestion Policer" is not defined.

   - In Section 3.1, the general-case description of policer (the
     second paragraph) is describing mechanism better left to a
     different I-D. OTOH, the fourth and fifth paragraph are an
     example appropriate for this document (especially since it
     is the case found in our Charter).

--
John Leslie <[e-mail]>