[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-tcpm-3517bis-02

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 04 April 2012 22:05 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 E45C611E80EC; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 15:05:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 EKCoaT8le8o7; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 15:05:22 -0700 (PDT)
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 2DD7511E80D9; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 15:05:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frankenstein.test.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 q34M5GvQ080380 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 4 Apr 2012 17:05:18 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 17:05:15 -0500
Message-Id: <D4F3F164-20B5-4115-A114-909C97EC1984@nostrum.com>
To: draft-ietf-tcpm-3517bis.all@tools.ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
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-3517bis-02
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: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 22:05:23 -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-3517bis-02
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2012-04-04
IETF LC End Date: 2012-04-11

Summary: Essentially ready for publication. I've got a few editorial comments and nits that might should be considered prior to publication.

Major issues:

None

Minor issues:

None

Nits/editorial comments:

-- IDNits reports some issues--please check.

-- The headers say the draft obsoletes 3517, but this is not mentioned in the abstract. The introduction says this is a revision of 3517, which is a bit ambiguous as to whether "revise" means to "obsolete" or "update".

-- Abstract: Any reason not to put the abstract on the first page as is currently conventional?

-- section 1, 2nd paragraph, [RFC793]

Consider moving the reference to the first TCP mention.

-- section 1, 2nd paragraph, 2nd to last sentence: "Alternate SACK-based loss recovery methods can be used in TCP as implementers see fit (as long as the alternate algorithms follow the guidelines provided in [RFC5681])."

This seems redundant with the first sentence in the paragraph.

-- section 2, definition of "Pipe": 'The algorithm is often referred to as the "pipe algorithm"'

Which algorithm? The one in this document? The "fundamentally different one"?

-- section 4:

Please expand SMSS on first mention.