Re: [Last-Call] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-aqm-dualq-coupled-24

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Christer, thank you for your review. I have entered a No Objection ballot for this document.

Lars


> On 2022-8-23, at 10:31, Christer Holmberg via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
> Review result: Almost Ready
> 
> 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-tsvwg-aqm-dualq-coupled-24
> 
> Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
> Review Date: 2022-08-23
> IETF LC End Date: 2022-07-21
> IESG Telechat date: 2022-08-25
> 
> Summary:
> 
> The content and technology of the document is outside the area of expertise, so
> my comments are mainly related to the readability of the document. I list
> everything as Nits/editorial issues, eventhough some could also be considered
> Minor issues.
> 
> Major issues:
> 
> N/A
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
> N/A
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> ABSTRACT:
> 
> I think the Abstract is too long. Also, it starts with the "This specification
> defines..." sentence. I think it should start with a few sentences on what the
> problem is, and then indicate what the document defines in order to solve that
> problem.
> 
> INTRODUCTION (Section 1):
> 
> In the beginning of the Section there is a "This document specifies a
> framework..." statement. Then, there is a similar statement at the end of
> Section 1.1., which is only supposed to describe the problem statement - not
> the solution. There is also a Scope section (1.2) and a Features section (1.4),
> but it is quite difficult to separate between Scope and Features.
> 
> SECTION 2:
> 
> It seems like the actual requirements for the framework are not presented until
> Section 2.5. I think the requirements should come earlier, before the solution.
> 
> SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS (Section 4):
> 
> There is quite a bit of text in the Security Considerations. In general that is
> not a bad thing :)
> 
> My question is whether the content is actually about security? Much seem to be
> more "operational" issues.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art