Fernando, thanks for your review. Will leave it the authors/WG to consider your comments. On your major point, personally I don’t find it problematic for the diagrams to be archived elsewhere, given our current limitations of ASCII art and the clear presentation in the referenced doc/session in TSVAREA.
Alissa > On Mar 25, 2017, at 11:02 PM, Fernando Gont <fg...@si6networks.com> wrote: > > Reviewer: Fernando Gont > Review result: Ready with Issues > > 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 > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-aqm-codel-07 > Reviewer: Fernando Gont > Review Date: 2017-03-25 > IETF LC End Date: 2017-03-27 > IESG Telechat date: 2017-04-13 > > Summary: > The document is well written. However, there seem to be too many > details that are left out in other associated documents. Whereas such > details (including figures) are needed to understand this document, > they should be included here. Either provide full explanations or > summarize the outcome without details (there's text that somehow > relies on the reading finding such figures elsewhere). > > > Major issues: > * Section 5.1, page 16: >> A more detailed explanation with many pictures can be found in >> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-tsvarea-4.pdf > . > > Unless I'm missing something, if this document is specifying CoDel, > then all such details should be here. > > > Minor issues: > * General: > The document would benefit from a terminology section. For example, > only well into the I-D one finds definitions of terms such as "sojourn > times" or "target setpoint". Not sure if those terms are supposed to > be trivial/obvious to most people reading this document, but their > non-definition left me trying to figure out what the terms were about > before I was ale to better understand what you were describing. > > > > Page 3, Section 1: >> o simple and efficient implementation (can easily span the > spectrum >> from low-end, linux-based access points and home routers up > to >> high-end commercial router silicon) > > There seems to be an unnecesary implicit "judgement" here, associating > linux-based with low-end, and commercial with high end. I suggest you > modify the text. > > > Page 10: >> count_ = (delta > 1 && now - drop_next_ < 16*interval_)? > > For clarity, I'd use additional parenthesis here. > > > Nits/editorial comments: > * Page 17: >> The power vs. f curve for any AIMD TCP is monotone decreasing. > > Please expand the acronym. > > > * Page 17: >> simulation that this result holds for Reno, Cubic, and >> Westwood[TSV84]. > > Missing space. > > Thanks! > Fernando > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > gen-...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list aqm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
