Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lf-conv-frmwk-06
Ben Campbell <ben@estacado.net> Mon, 19 October 2009 15:22 UTC
Return-Path: <ben@estacado.net>
X-Original-To: gen-art@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA8CA3A688F; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 08:22:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gDCNMXPlT1+B; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 08:22:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from estacado.net (estacado-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:266::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7E6B3A685C; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 08:22:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dn3-109.estacado.net (dn3-109.estacado.net [172.16.3.109]) (authenticated bits=0) by estacado.net (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n9JFM1OV003996 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 19 Oct 2009 10:22:01 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@estacado.net)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1076)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
From: Ben Campbell <ben@estacado.net>
In-Reply-To: <4ADC7822.1060705@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 10:22:01 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <E451A3AA-D7AD-4FE2-934D-FFC910C9318B@estacado.net>
References: <A0BFDD8C-1D13-44E7-A107-F92977401B63@estacado.net> <6F965121-A6C1-4720-AE83-558F9D5BCBC0@estacado.net> <4ADC7822.1060705@cisco.com>
To: mike shand <mshand@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1076)
Cc: jgs@juniper.net, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, stbryant@cisco.com
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lf-conv-frmwk-06
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:22:06 -0000
Hi, This email addresses all of my concerns. Specific comments inline Thanks! Ben. On Oct 19, 2009, at 9:30 AM, mike shand wrote: > Ben Campbell wrote: >> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) >> reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see >> http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). >> >> Please wait for direction from your document shepherd >> or AD before posting a new version of the draft. >> >> Document: draft-ietf-rtgwg-lf-conv-frmwk-06 >> Reviewer: Ben Campbell >> Review Date: 06 Oct 2009 >> IESG Telechat date: 08 Oct 2009 >> >> Summary: This document is ready for publication as an informational >> RFC. I have a few remaining nits that may be worth addressing if >> there is a new revision, or possibly in auth 48--but none are worth >> blocking publication. >> >> Note: I reviewed revision 5 at last call. This review is >> incremental to that one. Most of my comments are addressed in >> revision 6. >> >> Major issues: None >> >> Minor issues: None >> >> Nits/editorial comments: >> >> -- A few nits from my previous review resulted in no change. I >> don't know if these were intentional choices (which is okay), or >> oversights, So I will paste them below, along with any additional >> comments where relevant: >> >> >>>> -- [Section 2] 2nd to last paragraph: "congestion loss" >>>> >>>> Did you mean "congestion" or "packet loss"? >>> >> >> No change. To amplify, you use the term "congestion loss", which I >> read to mean "a reduction in congestion", i.e. a good thing. I >> don't think that's what you meant. Do you mean something like >> "packet loss due to congestion"? > We have changed this to "congestive packet loss" in the next version That helps, thanks! >> >>> -- section 5.1, second to last paragraph: >>> >>> Is there a reference for the simulations? >> >> No change. It would be nice to have some evidence (a reference, or >> a sentence of two describing the simulations ) to back up >> assertions like "simulations indicate". Otherwise they come off as >> weasel-words [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_words ] > Some of these simulation results were presented to the IETF RTG-WG, > but it doesn't seem appropriate in a framework draft such as this to > go into significant details. A compromise might be to simply say something to the effect of "Simulations presented to the work group indicate...". But I have no further objections if you thought about it, and still elected to keep the text as is. >> >>> >>> -- 6.1, first paragraph: >>> >>> s/"can be proved"/"can be proven" >>> >>> Also, is there a reference for such a proof? >> >> No change. See previous comment re: weasel words. > > The reference cited in the next para contains such a proof. We have > added another citation at this point Okay, thanks, that helps. > On 01/01/1970 wrote: >> 1. Go to https://cisco.webex.com/cisco/j.php?J=206254345&PW=NMWY2NzkxMDIy >> 2. Enter the meeting password: lfa >> 3. Click "Join Now". >> 4. Follow the instructions t >> > I assume this was a cut and paste error? >> >> >> -- idnits returns the following: >> >>> Miscellaneous warnings: >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> == The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, >>> but was >>> first submitted before 10 November 2008. Should you add the >>> disclaimer? >>> (See the Legal Provisions document at >>> http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.). >>> >>> >>> Checking references for intended status: Informational >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of >>> draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework-11 >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
- [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-l… Ben Campbell
- [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-r… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ie… mike shand
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ie… Ben Campbell