On 7/24/07, Ian McDonald <ian.mcdonald@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hopefully I'm not too late to submit feedback for the meeting. I just picked up reading this email that we have this draft from Eddie: draft-kohler-dccp-ccid3-drops-01.txt
I just worked out I was too late for the meeting. My apologies. I hope the feedback is still useful.
I have a couple of comments I'd like raised if possible (not sure I'll be attending via jabber): - is this actually needed as a separate RFC? Given how small it is, perhaps it is more of a start of CCID3bis? I don't really know anything about IETF processes though - so it may be appropriate as it is - it just seems it would be better in core CCID3 document. - Given that it is a standalone document I think it could be clarified a little. In Section 3.1 it discusses how the content should basically match loss intervals, which does make sense. I think it should make explicit reference to section 8.6.1 of RFC4342 though. In particular it should discuss how many loss counts to send. I was wondering whether we needed to potentially retransmit loss counts, but seeing that loss intervals in effect keep on getting sent until we realise we have an acknowledgment the same applies to loss counts in effect - I just think this should be made explicit somehow. Regards, Ian
-- Web: http://wand.net.nz/~iam4/ Blog: http://iansblog.jandi.co.nz WAND Network Research Group
