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

[Yuchung Cheng <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 3:06 PM Peter Yee via Datatracker
<[e-mail]> 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".
>
>