IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Last-Call] [art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch-18

Anjam Saqib <anjamsaqib10@gmail.com> Thu, 21 July 2022 16:06 UTC

Return-Path: <anjamsaqib10@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22B40C13C509; Thu, 21 Jul 2022 09:06:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.853
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.853 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ba4pCyC1OhpD; Thu, 21 Jul 2022 09:06:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x529.google.com (mail-ed1-x529.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::529]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F113DC1527B7; Thu, 21 Jul 2022 09:06:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x529.google.com with SMTP id z22so2739833edd.6; Thu, 21 Jul 2022 09:06:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=hGPigew4Sz3fBI3bcW5Ak8mSPTS/G07Gq9G9a/SnsPs=; b=XaWIrDYWJ7Y+r5AqJakNFgdhHjh6e+I1QJioon0hbw19BS/w2XApFzKeK/XU52glJd XATA1h3Qv2yn2DL0zYhi4fgv0/kvV0c+fk2HHBzEIkxP86Vj22k6RmgmBbxjaEt71dHT fUUkkrrFXKwQXpApRvWfcD30yx407nZJ9l03TVRdW56tpN2aYriII0209LMZ1JZxi1UY /uKaNoGLUXgN3qFq33mF2diKJrvxSkX6zl7Edn1FQOaATMgg6bxNjt87qtULHpYEp7U6 SQkDh9e1EDy6WfUJUXlG+zVpUROP1Si2QuFU4L6oVH3bnDFJUDdeBJFpROabmzL4IFxu ZqVg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=hGPigew4Sz3fBI3bcW5Ak8mSPTS/G07Gq9G9a/SnsPs=; b=AxM4qzxTGUw2MBJyDg+VvsV+cXdBqgb7+pLgJrj5N2djINywDiSQemTvTVllsZXYnq 6LFZsAWybN+reMbg4l6iX5c0uHM/M/Es1O22byFK5qP5T+SpoFB92OGAnJ+2QDXflPLM Nnm2ME6ErIH886r+ftuA2mZpQSWoBi3yKMlK475oku0D6+1SylysjKSsvAYtq2eD9yjN nctXWPt5HLFczGhz2FUc9IJ9hQDHWpN4G4tD7N5MhyWfU0TbeL+6PmnMlOrhq84v1z9d YZf2b7Keb5o+JggufHfsHxTvZXu2g20XCcIB89tKBPRx12+6c74L5LHFmRFJLKdFLU3u YRMA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora/dBqxjjJVEY45kI2WZ8clmJzzHJQctP8P989Bc1AMTQHJN8QEQ 9jn/VTQUgE1ci0Lo86eT7AnjqhwfRwwGP8RvmWs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1s5s9zqqbuJhv9r+cziT/9T0x0DzSNcH5aH5+k+iCcmDpBQG54P/y0dKV2XLHBG6qZwTyO2NPbjB4Zn4gM7fYY=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:4386:b0:43b:c536:45b2 with SMTP id o6-20020a056402438600b0043bc53645b2mr4988051edc.298.1658419569924; Thu, 21 Jul 2022 09:06:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <165833585200.45796.11505382548835211711@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <165833585200.45796.11505382548835211711@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Anjam Saqib <anjamsaqib10@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2022 21:05:56 +0500
Message-ID: <CAPrDipFpedqYBYPmX99+CCaRmnW68LdqHAeTVc7wZWqAgbiZng@mail.gmail.com>
To: Marco Tiloca <marco.tiloca@ri.se>
Cc: ART Area <art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, tsvwg@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005aa34e05e452e57d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/l7fr61GGoBK2r-7XTvOfy8BDYvc>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] [art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch-18
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2022 16:06:13 -0000

Show my share

On Wed, Jul 20, 2022, 9:51 PM Marco Tiloca via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
wrote:

> Reviewer: Marco Tiloca
> Review result: Ready with Nits
>
> Thanks for this document! Please see my comments below.
>
> Best,
> /Marco
>
> [General]
>
> * Based on the guidelines from RFC 7322, the "Acknowledgements" section
> should
> be unnumbered and placed between the "References" section and the "Authors'
> Addresses" section.
>
> * It is worth mentioning upfront that "capacity" refers to "link capacity"
> in
> terms of experienced bit rate. This becomes explicit only in Section 5.1,
> when
> discussing "Scalable throughput."
>
> [Abstract]
>
> * The three components of the L4S architecture include "protocol features
> that
> allow network elements to identify L4S traffic".
>
>    The protocol in question becomes evident in Section 2 as ECN. The
> abstract
>    can already mention that, e.g., as "features of the Explicit Congestion
>    Notification (ECN) protocol that allow ..."
>
> [Section 1]
>
> * "With some transport protocols, namely TCP and SCTP, the sender has to
> check
> for suitably updated receiver feedback, whereas with more recent transport
> protocols such as QUIC and DCCP, all receivers have always been suitable."
>
>    The first part of the sentence focuses on checking feedback from
> receivers,
>    while the second one on the actual receivers. Does the second part
> actually
>    mean "... feedback from all receivers is always suitable" ?
>
> [Section 2]
>
> * "... as the protocol to identify to the network which packets are L4S and
> which are Classic."
>
>    This should be something like "... as the protocol that allows the
> network
>    to identify which packets are L4S and which are Classic."
>
> [Section 5.2]
>
> * "... as opposed to TLS over UDP"
>
>    Do you mean "TLS over TCP" or rather "DTLS over UDP"? Or instead the
> use of
>    TLS for securing UDP-based transports such as QUIC?
>
> [Nits]
>
> * Section 3: s/low enough not build/low enough to not build
>
> * Section 4.3: s/specifies that requirements that/specifies the
> requirements
> that
>
> * Section 5.1: s/because it assume/because it assumes
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> art mailing list
> art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email