Re: [tsvwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-byte-pkt-congest-09.txt> (Byte and Packet Congestion Notification) to Best Current Practice

SM <sm@resistor.net> Fri, 08 March 2013 09:40 UTC

Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130308004436.0b386748@resistor.net>
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2013 01:37:17 -0800
To: ietf@ietf.org
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-byte-pkt-congest-09.txt> (Byte and Packet Congestion Notification) to Best Current Practice
In-Reply-To: <0d5d7917f96062137ef225dd365559fe.squirrel@www.erg.abdn.ac. uk>
References: <20130221162137.31566.7988.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20130306091510.GA45477@verdi> <0d5d7917f96062137ef225dd365559fe.squirrel@www.erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Precedence: list

At 01:50 06-03-2013, gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk wrote:
>The discussion on the proposed milestone was at  IETF-81, Quebec City,
>http://tools.ietf.org/wg/tsvwg/minutes?item=minutes81.html.  This was
>followed-up with the ADs, with a result that the document milestone
>proposed BCP status.

This is a quick comment.  Although RFC 2309 is informational, it was 
interesting to read.

As a nit about the Abstract, I suggest using "memo" instead of "document".

In Section 4:

  "This section is informative, not normative."

I read "informative" as providing useful or interesting 
information.  I don't know what "not normative" is.  The section is 
actually narrative.  It explains why the intended status of the memo 
should be BCP (note that I have not read the minutes).

The memo is basically recommendations about RED in byte mode or 
packet mode.  I did not fully appreciate the writing style on my 
first reading of the memo.

In summary, the answers for whether this memo should be a BCP are 'it 
depends', 'no' and 'yes'.

Regards,
-sm

Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-byte-pkt-congest… John Leslie
Re: [tsvwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-byte-pkt… gorry
Re: [tsvwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-byte-pkt… SM