[conex] Genart telechat review: draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech-13

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Mon, 01 December 2014 15:30 UTC

Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F6CB1A1EF5; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 07:30:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tqrs1DUr9n92; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 07:30:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD9C81A1EFC; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 07:30:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from unnumerable.local ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.9/8.14.7) with ESMTP id sB1FU466082499 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 1 Dec 2014 09:30:04 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [] claimed to be unnumerable.local
Message-ID: <547C8977.40307@nostrum.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 09:29:59 -0600
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, conex@ietf.org, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech.all@tools.ietf.org
References: <53E1377A.5010906@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <53E1377A.5010906@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/conex/UFGvRD7T3gXlSLo2tCWcm6iiYA4
Subject: [conex] Genart telechat review: draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech-13
X-BeenThere: conex@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Congestion Exposure working group discussion list <conex.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/conex>, <mailto:conex-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/conex/>
List-Post: <mailto:conex@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:conex-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/conex>, <mailto:conex-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 15:30:12 -0000

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
< http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech-13
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 1 Dec 2014
IETF LC End Date: past
IESG Telechat date: 4 Dec 2014

Summary: Ready for publication as an Informational RFC

This revision addresses my question below.


On 8/5/14 2:58 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
> you may receive.
> Document: draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech-12
> Reviewer: Robert Sparks
> Review Date: 5-Aug-2014
> IETF LC End Date: 8-Aug-2014
> IESG Telechat date: Not on an upcoming telechat agenda
> Summary: Ready for publication as Informational
> This document handles a complex description problem in a very 
> accessible way.
> Thank you for the effort that has gone into creating it.
> One minor point to double-check:
> This document goes out of its way to push decisions about measuring in 
> packets,
> bytes, or other units to the concrete  encoding proposals. RFC6789 was 
> explicit
> about conex exposing a metric of congestion-volume measured in bytes.
> RFC6789 was published a couple of years ago - has that part of it 
> become stale?
> If so, it would be good for this document to explicitly call that out.
> If not, (most of section 4.6 goes back to -04 which predates RFC6789),
> does this document need to retain the this flexibility in its 
> description?