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

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Thu, 13 September 2018 02:51 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
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 E6CDA1271FF; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 19:51:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn@ietf.org, =?utf-8?q?Michael_T=C3=BCxen?= <tuexen@fh-muenster.de>, tcpm-chairs@ietf.org, tuexen@fh-muenster.de, tcpm@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.83.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <153680710893.9432.14024338054788704789.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2018 19:51:48 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/Zt6YQAybWcpyKMUNMqFy2ZAl3ts>
Subject: [tcpm] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn-11: (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: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 02:51:50 -0000

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