Elwyn, Pekka, et al,
FYI, I have finally posted an updated version of the NACK-Based
Reliable Multicast Building Blocks document:
This update addresses the comments you raised including removal of
references to "Router Assistance" discussion, updates to the
Security Considerations and references using the suggestions of
George Gross and others, various areas requiring clarification as
pointed out and all of the comments that Elwyn raise below.
At 1:50 PM +0100 4/15/08, Elwyn Davies wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 15 April 2008
IETF LC End Date: 17 April 2008
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
A well-written document covering some pretty complex ideas.
Technically ready for the IESG but a little up front explanation for
the naive reader would help as noted below. Referring to the RFC
3269 guidelines, the document seems to have covered all the
(relevant) bases. There might be a question mark about the
suggested congestion control mechanisms since they are pre-standard
(at best). There are also a few editorial nits.
[Aside: The phrase 'the creation of an "early NACK" slot for these
historical NACKers' raised a chuckle here! Non-British readers may
not appreciate this.]
s1. A little more explanation of just what a NACK based protocol
does would be helpful, together with a note on 'timer-based
NACK-suppression' and the idea of 'repairs' and 'repair
s2.4: 'NACK implosion problems' - this may require a little explanation.
s2.5: 'probabilistic timer-based NACK suppression' is just a piece
of jargon at this stage in the document as it stands. See comment on
s1. One thought I had was to move s2 after s3, but s3 is so large
that this may not be appropriate.
s220.127.116.11, para 1: s/affect/effect/, s/provided/providing/
s3.9: Without casting aspersions on the competence of the papers
referenced as [TfmccPaper] and [PGMCC], the assertion that the
solutions described in two academic papers can meet the requirements
for congestion control might seem a little cavalier or premature
s3.11: Since this covers one of the prime requirements of RFC 3269,
it might sit better as a top level section even though it is short.
(idnits does not report any issues).
Abstract: s/negative- acknowledgment/negative-acknowledgment/
s3.1: s/theFEC/the FEC/
s3.2.1, para 2: 'to initiate the NACK processor': s/processor/processing/?
s3.2.1, para 3: 'For probabilistic, timer-base suppression': s/base/based/
s3.2.2, bullet 1.: Define what sort of logarithm is meant by 'ln' -
and later define 'exp()'
s3.2.2, bullet 2.: The page break between page 15 and 16 is
s3.2.2: The relationship between the parameters of the C routine and
the variables defined on the body of the text is not absolutely
s3.2.2, at top of page 16: 'Alternate values may be used to for
buffer utilization, reliable delivery latency and group size
s/to for/for/ probably
s3.7, para 1: 'only the sender require RTT knowledge' either
s/sender require/sender requires/ or s//senders require/
s3.7.4, last para: s/therange/the range/
s4, end of para 3: s/if this acceptable/if this is acceptable/
IETF mailing list