ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lf-conv-frmwk-06

2009-10-19 11:22:45
Hi,

This email addresses all of my concerns. Specific comments inline

Thanks!

Ben.

On Oct 19, 2009, at 9:30 AM, mike shand wrote:

Ben Campbell wrote:
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"?
We have changed this to "congestive packet loss" in the next version

That helps, thanks!


-- 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 ]
Some of these simulation results were presented to the IETF RTG-WG, but it doesn't seem appropriate in a framework draft such as this to go into significant details.

A compromise might be to simply say something to the effect of "Simulations presented to the work group indicate...". But I have no further objections if you thought about it, and still elected to keep the text as is.



-- 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.

The reference cited in the next para contains such a proof. We have added another citation at this point

Okay, thanks, that helps.

On 01/01/1970  wrote:
1. Go to https://cisco.webex.com/cisco/j.php?J=206254345&PW=NMWY2NzkxMDIy
2. Enter the meeting password: lfa
3. Click "Join Now".
4. Follow the instructions t



I assume this was a cut and paste error?




-- 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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>