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

Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Fri, 17 August 2018 18:22 UTC

Return-Path: <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1236A130E00; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 11:22:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p4qET-ejKOjL; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 11:22:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk [137.50.19.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4286130DC7; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 11:22:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Gs-MacBook-Pro.local (fgrpf.plus.com [212.159.18.54]) by pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C99691B0020A; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 19:22:45 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <5B771275.2080709@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 19:22:45 +0100
From: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Reply-To: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
Organization: University of Aberdeen
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
CC: gen-art@ietf.org, tcpm@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn.all@ietf.org
References: <153452985801.18009.2900521078281198682@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <153452985801.18009.2900521078281198682@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/lZRsZEf1bzNZg8DTpfMlR5NJ1aE>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn-09
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
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 18:22:58 -0000

Thanks Russ - I believe we will deal with all these in the next revision,

Gorry

On 17/08/2018, 19:17, Russ Housley wrote:
> 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
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> 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:
>
> None
>
>
> 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",
>     "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
>     "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.
>
>
> Nits:
>
> 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
>     queues.
>
> 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/
>