[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc3782-bis

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Mon, 21 November 2011 22:15 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3DF321F8880; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:15:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.287
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.287 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.313, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4LX4502FWilH; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:15:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AEC021F85A8; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:15:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dn3-53.estacado.net (vicuna-alt.estacado.net [75.53.54.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pALMFC9Q051882 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 21 Nov 2011 16:15:13 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 16:15:12 -0600
Message-Id: <BFEE894F-8C38-4DE5-8DA9-6C6FB228CC59@nostrum.com>
To: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc3782-bis.all@tools.ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1)
Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 75.53.54.121 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: "gen-art@ietf.org Review Team" <gen-art@ietf.org>, The IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc3782-bis
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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, 21 Nov 2011 22:15:20 -0000

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc3782-bis-03
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2011-11-21
IETF LC End Date: 2011-11-21

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard.

Major issues:

None

Minor issues:

-- Appendix A refers the reader back to RFC 3782 for additional information. But this draft purports to obsolete that RFC. If there is important info in it that is not covered by this draft, then it doesn't really obsolete it. Is there a reason that information was not brought forward into this draft?

-- There is very little 2119 normative language. On a quick scan, I see one capitalized SHOULD NOT and one MAY. Yet it seems like there are other statements that are just as important for correct behavior as those. For the sake of consistency, it might be easiest to just drop 2119 language entirely.

-- section 6, 2nd to last paragraph: "...it is important that the sender not execute the Fast Recovery steps..."

This sounds like a SHOULD NOT (example of previous comment.)


Nits/editorial comments:

-- IDNits mentions several references that have no citation in the body. I note that the PROTO write up indicates these have been considered and are relevant to the draft even though they are note cited. My understanding, however, is that the RFC editor style guide either requires or strongly suggests that each reference be cited.

-- section 4, paragraph 2: "For a TCP that implements…"

a TCP _sender_ ?

-- Appendix A, last paragraph: "Section 11 of [RFC3782] listed changes relative to [RFC3782]."

relative to itself?