Re: [Tsvwg] AD review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-quickstart-05

[Erblichs <[e-mail]>]

Sally Floyd,

	Requesting sending rate:

	  I would like to know whether async speeds for the flows
	  are an issue. What I mean by async flows is say a 1Gb capacity
	  flow in one direction and say under 10Mb in the reverse direction.
	  Any two figures that are drasticly different would be acceptable.

	  Thus, request sending rate SHOULDN'T also need to "reserve"
	  return bandwidth. And ack reduction in the reverse direction
	  would also indicate a form of congestion.

	  I did not see these two above items mentioned in this draft.

	Mitchell Erblich
	-----------------

Sally Floyd wrote:
> 
> Lars -
> 
> > find my review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-quickstart-05 below. I didn't find
> > any major technical issues, it's mostly small nits.
> >
> > One overall meta-comment, however, is that the document mixes
> > specification (description of the mechanism and protocols) and
> > applicability statements (discussion of behavior, effects, issues,
> > plus long appendices discussing related work, design options not
> > taken, a rebuttal to a review, etc.) This makes it difficult for the
> > reader to extract the mandatory-to-implement pieces out of the overall
> > work.
> >
> > For a Standards Track document, I'd require that this be addressed,
> > probably by refactoring the document into multiple smaller and more
> > focused ones. Since this is going for Experimental, I'm not going to
> > require this, but still would like to strongly suggest that the
> > authors discuss whether presenting the large body of work in a small
> > number of more focused documents (maybe: architecture, IP-layer
> > extension specification, TCP extension specification, applicability
> > statement) may not be more readable.
> 
> Many thanks for the review.  We made all the changes, and submitted the
> revised version, at:
> http://www.icir.org/floyd/papers/draft-ietf-tsvwg-quickstart-06.txt
> http://www.icir.org/floyd/papers/draft-ietf-tsvwg-quickstart-06.ps
> 
> We deleted one appendix (the one on "Feedback from Bob Briscoe"),
> and added two paragraphs to the Introduction saying that all of the
> formal specifications are in Sections 3, 4, and 6.
> 
> - Sally
> 
>       Changes from draft-ietf-tsvwg-quickstart-05:
> 
>       * Minor editing in response to IESG feedback.
>         This includes changing one "should" to "SHOULD",
>         and changing formating of the IANA Considerations
>         section.
> 
>       * Clarifying in the Introduction that the QS router
>         does not give preferential treatment to QS packets.
>         In response to email from Fil Dickinson.
> 
>       * Added a discussion of interactions between
>         Quick-Start and draft-ietf-pmtud-method.  Feedback
>         from IESG.
> 
>       * Deleted Appendix F on "Feedback from Bob Briscoe".
>         From feedback from the IESG about deleting unnecessary
>         appendices.
> 
>       * Added a paragraph to the Introduction about which
>         sections contain normative references, and which
>         sections are general discussion.  Feedback from
>         IESG.