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

Alexey Melnikov <> Tue, 10 April 2012 13:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9B2621F85D4; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 06:09:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.251
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.251 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.348, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id huuwelazUrQ5; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 06:09:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C313321F85D0; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 06:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1334063364;; s=selector;; bh=McsEq1266l+vaPxpvakj0Ss1PbEOCwKorvQqNn5PcU8=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=tFCT+DmkocNyF8W/beEvjnjx0ak7WOhtFUGQE2PeXawJ3yav5buoPAmedmcvdaHPQ7QGm6 DCwxasC2QjapzkH3+F4LyvruQOJCnn1sYVa7t6k0HSoEJ7fSubpTdnobakvixZbUC5qRZd rNC+NgbLLprWKfG8S2QNh0SJ0kt6yC0=;
Received: from [] ( []) by (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <>; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:09:24 +0100
X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: PIPELINING
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:10:01 +0100
From: Alexey Melnikov <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
To: Bob Briscoe <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 13:09:27 -0000

On 04/04/2012 18:45, Bob Briscoe wrote:
> Alexey,
Hi Bob,
> 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).
Maybe I wasn't very clear: the document was understandable without 
checking out the references.
> 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.)
> "
I've just rechecked references to drafts and I can see them being 
Informative. So thank you for your response and your document is getting 
"all clear" from me.

Thank you,
> Bob
> 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