Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-conex-concepts-uses-04.txt

Bob Briscoe <> Wed, 04 April 2012 17:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6501C11E8072 for <>; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 10:45:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.332
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.332 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.267, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S6iaC5JM-6BM for <>; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 10:45:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFE5811E808D for <>; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 10:45:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 18:45:16 +0100
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 18:45:16 +0100
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 18:45:07 +0100
Received: From ([]) by (WebShield SMTP v4.5 MR1a P0803.399); id 1333561522985; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 18:45:22 +0100
Received: from ([]) by (8.13.5/8.12.8) with ESMTP id q34Hj2w6005980; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 18:45:02 +0100
Message-ID: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 18:45:06 +0100
To: Alexey Melnikov <>
From: Bob Briscoe <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on
Cc: Nandita Dukkipati <>, General Area Review Team <>,, Alissa Cooper <>, The IESG <>, Richard Woundy <>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-conex-concepts-uses-04.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 17:45:20 -0000


Thanks for your review - we are all indebted to people like you who 
commit to review stuff that you don't necessarily have an interest in.

We're concerned if you think the doc isn't understandable without 
reading the I-D refs. This is meant to be the entry-point to the set 
of ConEx documentation, so we intended it to be understandable 
without knowing how ConEx works (beyond the high level description in 
the introduction). "Understandable" here means sufficient to satisfy 
the stated purpose of the doc, which is to motivate ConEx (not to 
understand how it works).

The refs are intended to be used the other way round - having read 
this, you should be motivated to go and read more, so it provides 
pointers to what's available.

Are you sure the need to read the refs is not a symptom of your 
(natural) curiosity to know how ConEx works? Is it really necessary 
to know the details of how ConEx works to understand the motivation 
for building it?

The second paragraph sets out the purpose of the doc:
    This document provides the entry point to the set of documentation
    about the Congestion Exposure (ConEx) protocol.  It focuses on the
    motivation for including a ConEx marking at the IP layer.  (A
    companion document, [I-D.ietf-conex-abstract-mech], focuses on the
    mechanics of the protocol.)


At 18:09 04/04/2012, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
>reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the 
>FAQ at <>
>Please resolve these comments along with any other comments you may receive.
>Document: draft-ietf-conex-concepts-uses-04.txt
>Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov
>Review Date: 2012-04-04
>IETF LC End Date: 2012-04-12
>IESG Review: 2012-04-12
>Summary: The document is nearly ready for publication as an 
>Informational RFC (see one issue below)
>Major issues: none
>Minor issues:
>This might be pedantic, but I think some of your Informational 
>references are actually Normative, because they are needed to 
>understand the document. See "IESG Statement: Normative and 
>Informative References" for more details 
>This almost doesn't matter for an Informational document, however if 
>any of 5 drafts becomes Normative, publication of this document as 
>an RFC will be delayed. Still, this might be better than just 
>getting it published with "work in progress" references.
>But otherwise this is a well written document and I enjoyed reading it.
>Nits/editorial comments: none

Bob Briscoe,                                BT Innovate & Design