Thanks Russ - I believe we will deal with all these in the next revision,
Gorry On 17/08/2018, 19:17, Russ Housley wrote:
Reviewer: Russ Housley Review result: Ready 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 <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn-09 Reviewer: Russ Housley Review Date: 2018-08-17 IETF LC End Date: 2018-08-28 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Ready Major Concerns: None Minor Concerns: Section 2: Please update the first paragraph to reference RFC 8174 in addition to RFC 2119, as follows: The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. Section 12.1: Please add a normative reference to RFC 7926. Nits: Abstract: s/RFC3168/RFC 3168/ Section 1: s/RFC8087 [RFC8087]/[RFC8087]/ Section 1 says: However, currently used loss-based congestion control mechanisms cannot always utilise a bottleneck link well where there are short queues. I stumbled on this sentence. Maybe it would read better if you said that current mechanisms sometimes provides poor link utilization when queues are short. Section 1: s/allow for short queues only/allow only for short queues/ Section 6: s/RFC3168 states/[RFC3168] states/ and s/dropped packet [RFC3168]./dropped packet./ Section 6: s/the TCPM WG or IESG/the TCPM WG or the IESG/ Section 7" s/TCPM working group/TCPM Working Group/ or /TCPM WG/
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
