Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tcpm-rack-14

Peter, thanks for your review. Yuchung, thanks for your response. I entered a No Objection ballot.

Alissa

> On Dec 7, 2020, at 4:28 PM, Yuchung Cheng <ycheng=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 3:06 PM Peter Yee via Datatracker
> <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Reviewer: Peter Yee
>> Review result: Ready with Nits
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>> 
>> Document: draft-ietf-tcpm-rack-14
>> Reviewer: Peter Yee
>> Review Date: 2020-12-06
>> IETF LC End Date: 2020-11-30
>> IESG Telechat date: 2020-12-17
>> 
>> Summary: This is a well-written draft specifying an efficient scheme for
>> detecting and recovering from TCP segment loss. There are a few minor nits that
>> should be corrected prior to publication, but to the extent that I understand
>> this specification, I don't see any major or minor flaws. [Ready with nits]
> Thanks for the review. We will make all the changes suggested in the
> next revision.
> 
>> 
>> Major issues: None
>> 
>> Minor issues: None
>> 
>> Nits/editorial comments:
>> 
>> General:
>> 
>> For all occurrences of "i.e." and "e.g.", make sure that they are consistently
>> followed by a comma. (Like I said, nits.)
>> 
>> Specific:
>> 
>> Page 7, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: change: "DUPTHRESH" to "DupThresh". This
>> appears to be only use of all caps for the term and it does not appear as such
>> in RFC 6675.
>> 
>> Page 9, Figure 1: while I understand what is being shown, I'm not a fan of
>> having the "<--" followed by things like "Receive P0" as this is not a
>> transmission by the TCP data receiver in the figure. The ACKs and SACKs are
>> fine on those lines, but I think the receives should be shown on the same line
>> as the sends.
>> 
>> Page 9, Figure 1, step 7a: why is there no "receive SACK" as show in step 5a?
> good idea. we'll include that to make it more complete.
> 
>> 
>> Page 9, 1st paragraph under Figure 1: change "(P1, P2, P3, P4)" to "(P0, P1,
>> P2, P3)" to match both the figure and the following text.
>> 
>> Page 14, 1st paragraph after list item #2: change "round trip" to "round-trip".
>> 
>> Page 16, 2nd paragraph: append a comma after "observed".
>> 
>> Page 17, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: append a comma after "temporary".
>> 
>> Page 18, 1st paragraph after "now >=" formula, 1 sentence: change "round trip"
>> to "round-trip".
>> 
>> Page 18, 2nd to last paragraph, 1st sentence: change "left hand" to "left-hand".
>> 
>> Page 20, 2nd to last paragraph, 2nd sentence: change "implementation-specific"
>> to "implementation specific".
>> 
>> Page 21, last paragraph, 1st sentence: the pointer to the earlier section is
>> oddly constructed, using doubled single quotes and capitalization that doesn't
>> even match the referenced section (6.1). It would be better, in my opinion,
>> just to give a pointer to the section number.
> sorry will replace w/ section pointer directly
>> 
>> Page 25, item #3, 1st sentence: change "are" to "is" as flight is singular.
>> 
>> Page 26, 1st partial paragraph, 1st full sentence: change "data-centers" to
>> "data centers".
>> 
>> Page 27, section 9.4, 1st sentence: delete "time" or alternatively insert "a"
>> before "longer".
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art