[tcpm] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn-09

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Fri, 17 August 2018 18:17 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.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 0E0F3130E14; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 11:17:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
To: <gen-art@ietf.org>
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn.all@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.83.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <153452985801.18009.2900521078281198682@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 11:17:38 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/jX2Pccox4ccsUfbyQDT22zGJ8FU>
Subject: [tcpm] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn-09
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 18:17:38 -0000

Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review result: 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

Document: draft-ietf-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn-09
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review Date: 2018-08-17
IETF LC End Date: 2018-08-28
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Ready

Major Concerns:


Minor Concerns:

Section 2: Please update the first paragraph to reference RFC 8174
in addition to RFC 2119, as follows: 

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

Section 12.1: Please add a normative reference to RFC 7926.


Abstract: s/RFC3168/RFC 3168/

Section 1: s/RFC8087 [RFC8087]/[RFC8087]/

Section 1 says:

   However, currently used loss-based congestion control mechanisms
   cannot always utilise a bottleneck link well where there are short

I stumbled on this sentence.  Maybe it would read better if you said
that current mechanisms sometimes provides poor link utilization when
queues are short.

Section 1: s/allow for short queues only/allow only for short queues/

Section 6: s/RFC3168 states/[RFC3168] states/ and
           s/dropped packet [RFC3168]./dropped packet./

Section 6: s/the TCPM WG or IESG/the TCPM WG or the IESG/

Section 7" s/TCPM working group/TCPM Working Group/ or /TCPM WG/