Re: [tcpm] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn-11: (with COMMENT)

[Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]>]

Adam,

Thanks for the comments.
It would be very unusual to hyphenate "congestion control",
so I'd suggest leaving this as-is to be consistent with other RFCs.

I plan to incorporate the other corrections in the next edit.

Gorry

On 13/09/2018, 03:51, Adam Roach wrote:
> Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn-11: Yes
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks for a well-written and easy-to-understand document. I find the proposed
> experiment quite interesting.
>
> I have a small number of editorial nits that you may want to address if you
> produce another version of the document.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I-D Nits reports:
>
>    == Unused Reference: 'RFC7713' is defined on line 538, but no explicit
>       reference was found in the text
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> General:
>
>    When used as a compound adjective, "congestion control" should be hyphenated.
>    e.g.:
>
>    * congestion-control algorithm(s)
>    * congestion-control mechanism(s)
>    * congestion-control response
>    * congestion-control behaviour
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> §1:
>
>>   Recognizing these changes in modern AQM practices,
>>   the strict requirement that ECN CE signals be treated identically to
>>   inferred packet loss have been relaxed [RFC8311].  This document
> Nit: "...has been..."
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> §12.2:
>
>>   [BUFFERBLOAT]
>>              Gettys, J. and K. Nichols, "Bufferbloat: Dark Buffers in
>>              the Internet", November 2011.
> This seems incomplete. I would suggest something more like:
>
>     [BUFFERBLOAT]
>                Gettys, J. and K. Nichols, "Bufferbloat: Dark Buffers in the
>                Internet", ACM Queue 9, 11, DOI 10.1145/2063166.2071893,
>                November 2011, https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2071893
>