I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
Document: draft-ietf-rtgwg-lf-conv-frmwk-06
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 06 Oct 2009
IESG Telechat date: 08 Oct 2009
Summary: This document is ready for publication as an informational
RFC. I have a few remaining nits that may be worth addressing if there
is a new revision, or possibly in auth 48--but none are worth blocking
publication.
Note: I reviewed revision 5 at last call. This review is incremental
to that one. Most of my comments are addressed in revision 6.
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
-- A few nits from my previous review resulted in no change. I don't
know if these were intentional choices (which is okay), or oversights,
So I will paste them below, along with any additional comments where
relevant:
-- [Section 2] 2nd to last paragraph: "congestion loss"
Did you mean "congestion" or "packet loss"?
No change. To amplify, you use the term "congestion loss", which I
read to mean "a reduction in congestion", i.e. a good thing. I don't
think that's what you meant. Do you mean something like "packet loss
due to congestion"?
-- section 5.1, second to last paragraph:
Is there a reference for the simulations?
No change. It would be nice to have some evidence (a reference, or a
sentence of two describing the simulations ) to back up assertions
like "simulations indicate". Otherwise they come off as weasel-words [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_words
]
-- 6.1, first paragraph:
s/"can be proved"/"can be proven"
Also, is there a reference for such a proof?
No change. See previous comment re: weasel words.
-- idnits returns the following:
Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
== The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work,
but was
first submitted before 10 November 2008. Should you add the
disclaimer?
(See the Legal Provisions document at
http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.).
Checking references for intended status: Informational
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
== Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of
draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework-11
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf