[Gen-art] Review: draft-sandlund-rfc4996bis-02

Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Mon, 16 July 2012 20:29 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 6E0F711E8143 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 13:29:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.376
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.376 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.111, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, 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 orGhvlgwmlue for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 13:29:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from morbo.mail.tigertech.net (morbo.mail.tigertech.net [67.131.251.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3408211E813F for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 13:29:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailc2.tigertech.net (mailc2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.156]) by morbo.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DACF8A38A9 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 13:29:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 814D318181F; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 13:29:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at c2.tigertech.net
Received: from [10.10.10.105] (pool-71-161-52-95.clppva.btas.verizon.net [71.161.52.95]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A80C118181D; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 13:29:55 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <500479C1.6020301@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 16:29:53 -0400
From: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: draft-sandlund-rfc4996bis@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [Gen-art] Review: draft-sandlund-rfc4996bis-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: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 20:29:11 -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-sandlund-rfc4996bis-02
     RObust Header Compression (ROHC): A Profile for TCP/IP (ROHC-TCP)
Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
Review Date: 16-July-2012
IETF LC End Date: Past
IESG Telechat date: 19-July-2012

Summary:  This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.
(I am guessing that I am confused about the major issue below.)

Major issues:
     In section 5.2.2.2 on negative acknowledgments the text says that 
the compress must ... "unless it has confidence that information sent 
after the packet being acknowledged already provides a suitable response 
..."  In the abstract, the sounds great.  If you know that you have 
solved the problem, don't worry about it.  But since this is the 
specific response to the NACK, it is very unclear what would constitute 
"confidence".  (Other places that refer to gaining confidence provide 
specific descriptions of how it is gained.  The primary methods for 
gaining confidence are receiving acks or sufficient transmissions.  If 
all that is meant here is sufficient transmissions, then saying that 
would be helpful.)

Minor issues:
     It seems to me that the labeling of entire sections as Informative 
or Normative is not particularly helpful.  It is unlikely to confuse 
anyone, so I don't see any harm in it either.  It just seems odd.

Nits/editorial comments: