Thanks Peter for your careful reading.
We agree to your proposed changes, and include revised text below to
address the mangled text. These comments seem relatively minor, so I'd
like to address them together with any other IESG comments.
Gorry
McCann Peter-A001034 wrote:
Sorry this is a couple of days late...
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 resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-dccp-quickstart-05
Reviewer: Pete McCann
Review Date: 24 June 2009
IETF LC End Date: 22 June 2009
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready for publication as Experimental
Major issues: none
Minor issues: none
Nits/editorial comments:
Section 2.1:
s/course-grain/coarse-grained/
Section 3.3.1:
In addition, the
requested rate MUST be less than or equal to the equivalent of a
sending rate of 100 packets per second [RFC4828 CCID 4 [RFC4828]
specifies that the allowed sending rate derived from the TCP
throughput equation is reduced by a factor that accounts for packet
header size.
Something is screwed up in the reference to RFC 4828: are you missing
a close bracket and a period?
---
We propose:
In addition, the
requested rate MUST be less than or equal to the equivalent of a
sending rate of 100 packets per second [RFC4828]. CCID 4 [RFC4828]
specifies that the allowed sending rate, derived from the TCP
throughput equation, is reduced by a factor that accounts for packet
header size.
---
Section 4:
The document does not modify
Should be:
This document does not modify
