Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lf-conv-frmwk-06

[mike shand <[e-mail]>]

Ben Campbell wrote:
> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
> reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
> http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
>
> Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
> or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-rtgwg-lf-conv-frmwk-06
> Reviewer: Ben Campbell
> Review Date: 06 Oct 2009
> IESG Telechat date: 08 Oct 2009
>
> Summary: This document is ready for publication as an informational 
> RFC. I have a few remaining nits that may be worth addressing if there 
> is a new revision, or possibly in auth 48--but none are worth blocking 
> publication.
>
> Note: I reviewed revision 5 at last call. This review is incremental 
> to that one. Most of my comments are addressed in revision 6.
>
> Major issues: None
>
> Minor issues: None
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
>
> -- A few nits from my previous review resulted in no change. I don't 
> know if these were intentional choices (which is okay), or oversights, 
> So I will paste them below, along with any additional comments where 
> relevant:
>
>
>>> -- [Section 2] 2nd to last paragraph: "congestion loss"
>>>
>>> Did you mean "congestion" or "packet loss"?
>>
>
> No change. To amplify, you use the term "congestion loss", which I 
> read to mean "a reduction in congestion", i.e. a good thing. I don't 
> think that's what you meant. Do you mean something like "packet loss 
> due to congestion"?
We have changed this to "congestive packet loss" in the next version
>
>> -- section 5.1, second to last paragraph:
>>
>> Is there a reference for the simulations?
>
> No change. It would be nice to have some evidence (a reference, or a 
> sentence of two describing the simulations )  to back up assertions 
> like "simulations indicate". Otherwise they come off as weasel-words [ 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_words ]
Some of these simulation results were presented to the IETF RTG-WG, but 
it doesn't seem appropriate in a framework draft such as this to go into 
significant details.
>
>>
>> -- 6.1, first paragraph:
>>
>> s/"can be proved"/"can be proven"
>>
>> Also, is there a reference for such a proof?
>
> No change. See previous comment re: weasel words.

The reference cited in the next para contains such a proof. We have 
added another citation at this pointOn 01/01/1970  wrote:
> 1. Go to https://cisco.webex.com/cisco/j.php?J=206254345&PW=NMWY2NzkxMDIy
> 2. Enter the meeting password: lfa
> 3. Click "Join Now".
> 4. Follow the instructions t
>

>
>
> -- idnits returns the following:
>
>>   Miscellaneous warnings:
>>   
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>
>>
>>   == The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, 
>> but was
>>      first submitted before 10 November 2008.  Should you add the 
>> disclaimer?
>>      (See the Legal Provisions document at
>>      http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.).
>>
>>
>>   Checking references for intended status: Informational
>>   
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>
>>
>>   == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of
>>      draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework-11
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>