Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lf-conv-frmwk-06
Ben Campbell <ben@estacado.net> Tue, 06 October 2009 19:21 UTC
Return-Path: <ben@estacado.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDE963A68D4; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 12:21:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.638
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.638 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.039, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gP6Fd831qk76; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 12:21:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from estacado.net (estacado-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:266::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E7303A67FF; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 12:21:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.3.213] (dn3-213.estacado.net [172.16.3.213]) (authenticated bits=0) by estacado.net (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n96JNNsh042056 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 6 Oct 2009 14:23:24 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@estacado.net)
Subject: Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lf-conv-frmwk-06
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1076)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
From: Ben Campbell <ben@estacado.net>
In-Reply-To: <A0BFDD8C-1D13-44E7-A107-F92977401B63@estacado.net>
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 14:23:23 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <6F965121-A6C1-4720-AE83-558F9D5BCBC0@estacado.net>
References: <A0BFDD8C-1D13-44E7-A107-F92977401B63@estacado.net>
To: mshand@cisco.com, stbryant@cisco.com, jgs@juniper.net, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1076)
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 19:21:51 -0000
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"? > -- 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 ] > > -- 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. -- 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 > >
- Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lf-conv-frm… Ben Campbell
- Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lf-co… Ben Campbell
- Re: Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-l… Ben Campbell
- Re: Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-l… mike shand