[core] CoCoA / Editorial Issues
Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net> Sun, 03 September 2017 12:55 UTC
Return-Path: <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D35013219A for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Sep 2017 05:55:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cTaEZCXZEHpp for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Sep 2017 05:55:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CE351321A0 for <core@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Sep 2017 05:55:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.91.203] ([80.92.118.205]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx102 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LvzF3-1dQqvQ4BvZ-017kQj for <core@ietf.org>; Sun, 03 Sep 2017 14:55:34 +0200
To: "core@ietf.org WG" <core@ietf.org>
From: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
Openpgp: id=071A97A9ECBADCA8E31E678554D9CEEF4D776BC9
Message-ID: <f999fae2-5d14-f826-4d41-0c1ec9760606@gmx.net>
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2017 14:55:32 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:kzjLw4tHHTojfZXQGYsVDMZ2TX3Oyx1cd6lCNd9BWv9Bbia2WfW uhcrxMCJMu81M+Mhpu0qRNE/RaG9ZHNS0khi5W0kWnySrMQu47FkYj23esEfn2vplUC05ew zZUWeG2M8v9R3jnlTa4iKgLQmySZDkAMtwX5oBta99/w2KwL7TfNcK/cSEvpB7zAIUTzAKs sGwn1ZnYD8A8kXhA7TeZg==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:MUq38n8Me0A=:QC545SJxEhuX49nO+dQ7py BNtRQIR1k0uShnHJ1hGlnlPwustv+WdxnsmD72CKmvoHoRHwlEpFgaBP7fVCXk3kOq5X1hlxq MKCMv7hTRUbRJXOHqzz1u6GadvVRRjI9a4JCnYaXIYRBgvsKo3NRqZakarI4xgApyww9hadTl bWZuAFpo5AIMi9AGcyfuoe3kx0Q7eOSnYLVjqLBwaGnZHeGG3G0ffbA9tfdWKqF5JNc0qwW+G q4NS/LIOnB5h6Xvxft1v//5wrOrdkqX+KLZYUX2cLjSnInwjlZwyZhWC/bWzECdR+s4qpS7r0 fvxlgA3f46U+5jv0OPOWfZAxzy8Uj3RPlcmM4maMvsabOytTui/3nsrWdWqcEdF9zpPH0TfhD WeWwk4YPl+YiF+cdMzrkj2cu0YeoPf/SZfjVRL2o8jXB9kao4M8t13bj9tOyql6PaX4Q+md2M L9T3T0COOEi2462Eje528R5wU0OMLCllLEOMYCGHAh883qOCnmGfQgNUR46eLGuYHMvyqN856 cUYka3+ebW0MZpo4nZO1dRW6bECT5KtGoyZfnHtXNqnYZnCOAwy5qS+BDx+UZ6UtWRPpF3yac oD8U54amyfA313sYOqSfDJDDdbSrwklGJ1Aj41Ma38fv3FfysUuXMSGeoDd4btPzrWtJj0gUb PQyrubiNErUCk/5knPPoTwZHanJj/KG5gJm7uJBDfkjCuwF0kSjiRa0WixdeZmb365sPZ33/O oyB8IuOUrn/f9Tpc68J5iygBw5FxxtFBVBGpQk2ekdLQbDTPtvzZmv18WCSRZWlVlHy8pOhbp WYGl+XtW5nFXZHEiRV53/9t5LPsmpxuivUTYJBFcZdcPJAPky4=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/xsuXOePPZyyXL4AVP1s3ptS_DWE>
Subject: [core] CoCoA / Editorial Issues
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2017 12:55:39 -0000
Below are a few basic / editorial review remarks. Shouldn't the title be changed into something else than "CoAP Simple Congestion Control/Advanced"? Currently, the title makes no sense. Either it is simple congestion control (which it cannot be since that's what is currently in the CORE specification) or it is advanced. I would prefer something "An Advanced Congestion Control Scheme for CoAP" Also I prefer if the following paragraph gets changed " This specification defines some simple advanced CoRE Congestion Control mechanisms, Simple CoCoA. It is making use of input from simulations and experiments in real networks. " Maybe something like "This specification defines an advanced congestion control for CoAP."; again simple + advanced makes no sense. It is also not necessary to state that you this work was done with input from simulations and experiments. Without those you wouldn't be able to standardize a congestion control mechanism in the IETF anyway. Terminology: Delete the following note since it is irrelevant for the specification whether it is informational, experimental or something else with regards to the use of RFC 2119 language. (Note that this document is itself informational, but it is discussing normative statements.) RFC 2119 boilerplate text: Normally the following language is used: The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. I don't know where you got this text from: The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] when they appear in ALL CAPS. These words may also appear in this document in lower case as plain English words, absent their normative meanings. Section 2 "Context" Historical stories are less useful for IETF document. I would suggest to delete this paragraph In the Vancouver IETF 84 CoRE meeting, a path forward was defined that includes a very simple basic scheme (lock-step with a number of parallel exchanges of 1) in the base specification together with performance-enhancing advanced mechanisms. I would move the core messages of the following two paragraphs to the introduction: The present specification is based on the approved text in the [RFC7252] base specification. It is making use of the text that permits advanced congestion control mechanisms and allows them to change protocol parameters, including NSTART and the binary exponential backoff mechanism. Note that Section 4.8 of [RFC7252] limits the leeway that implementations have in changing the CoRE protocol parameters. >From the paragraph above you want to explain the purpose of the NSTART and the binary exponential backoff mechanism and why it is relevant to this work. Ignore the rest. The present specification also assumes that, outside of exchanges, non-confirmable messages can only be used at a limited rate without an advanced congestion control mechanism (this is mainly relevant for [RFC7641]). It is also intended to address the [RFC8085] guideline about combining congestion control state for a destination; and to clarify its meaning for CoAP using the definition of an endpoint. The first sentence is a bit hard to parse. You are saying the following, I believe: It is difficult to send non-confirmable messages at a high rate since the sender has no information about potential congestion situation of the network (and also flow control information at the receiver side) since non-confirmable messages do not provide any response. The present specification does not address multicast or dithering beyond basic retransmission dithering. It is useful to say upfront that you are not addressing multicast. I don't understand what the second part of the sentence means. Btw, you can also move the statement about multicast to Section 3. "Area of Applicability". The security section is empty but I don't expect it to say a lot. Ciao Hannes
- [core] CoCoA / Editorial Issues Hannes Tschofenig