[tcpm] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-16: (with COMMENT)
Robert Wilton via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 06 July 2020 11:13 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietf.org
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B3B33A13A7; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 04:13:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider@ietf.org, tcpm-chairs@ietf.org, tcpm@ietf.org, Yoshifumi Nishida <nsd.ietf@gmail.com>, nsd.ietf@gmail.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.7.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <159403399242.10185.16737724841858266155@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2020 04:13:12 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/617n0vPuJnFkzC-PoyhayuaSQdE>
Subject: [tcpm] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-16: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpm/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2020 11:13:13 -0000
Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-16: No Objection 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-rto-consider/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for this document. I have no significant comments, just a few nits: 1 Introduction This document provides guidelines for developing an understanding of one path property: loss Recommend: "loss" -> "packet loss" (S.1) The requirements in this document apply only to the primary or last resort time-based loss detection. (S.2) The requirements for time-based loss detection mechanisms in this document are for the primary or "last resort" loss detection mechanism whether the mechanism is the sole loss repair strategy or works in concert with other mechanisms. I found the wording for these two requirements to be repetitive, possibly could be reworded and combined. 4 Requirements (1) As we note above, loss detection happens when a sender does not receive delivery confirmation within an some expected period of time. Nit: Delete "an" or "some" Often measuring the time required for delivery confirmation is is framed Nit: "is is" -> "is" Regards, Rob
- [tcpm] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf… Robert Wilton via Datatracker