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

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

This email addresses all of my concerns. Specific comments inline

Thanks!

Ben.

On Oct 19, 2009, at 9:30 AM, mike shand wrote:

> 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

That helps, thanks!

>>
>>> -- 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.

A compromise might be to simply say something to the effect of  
"Simulations presented to the work group indicate...". But I have no  
further objections if you thought about it, and still elected to keep  
the text as is.

>>
>>>
>>> -- 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 point

Okay, thanks, that helps.

> On 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
>>
>

I assume this was a cut and paste error?


>>
>>
>> -- 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>