[Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn-09

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review result: Ready

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 treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn-09
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review Date: 2018-08-17
IETF LC End Date: 2018-08-28
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Ready


Major Concerns:

None


Minor Concerns:

Section 2: Please update the first paragraph to reference RFC 8174
in addition to RFC 2119, as follows: 

   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 BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

Section 12.1: Please add a normative reference to RFC 7926.


Nits:

Abstract: s/RFC3168/RFC 3168/

Section 1: s/RFC8087 [RFC8087]/[RFC8087]/

Section 1 says:

   However, currently used loss-based congestion control mechanisms
   cannot always utilise a bottleneck link well where there are short
   queues.

I stumbled on this sentence.  Maybe it would read better if you said
that current mechanisms sometimes provides poor link utilization when
queues are short.

Section 1: s/allow for short queues only/allow only for short queues/

Section 6: s/RFC3168 states/[RFC3168] states/ and
           s/dropped packet [RFC3168]./dropped packet./

Section 6: s/the TCPM WG or IESG/the TCPM WG or the IESG/

Section 7" s/TCPM working group/TCPM Working Group/ or /TCPM WG/