On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 3:06 PM Peter Yee via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Peter Yee > Review result: Ready with Nits > > 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-tcpm-rack-14 > Reviewer: Peter Yee > Review Date: 2020-12-06 > IETF LC End Date: 2020-11-30 > IESG Telechat date: 2020-12-17 > > Summary: This is a well-written draft specifying an efficient scheme for > detecting and recovering from TCP segment loss. There are a few minor nits that > should be corrected prior to publication, but to the extent that I understand > this specification, I don't see any major or minor flaws. [Ready with nits] Thanks for the review. We will make all the changes suggested in the next revision. > > Major issues: None > > Minor issues: None > > Nits/editorial comments: > > General: > > For all occurrences of "i.e." and "e.g.", make sure that they are consistently > followed by a comma. (Like I said, nits.) > > Specific: > > Page 7, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: change: "DUPTHRESH" to "DupThresh". This > appears to be only use of all caps for the term and it does not appear as such > in RFC 6675. > > Page 9, Figure 1: while I understand what is being shown, I'm not a fan of > having the "<--" followed by things like "Receive P0" as this is not a > transmission by the TCP data receiver in the figure. The ACKs and SACKs are > fine on those lines, but I think the receives should be shown on the same line > as the sends. > > Page 9, Figure 1, step 7a: why is there no "receive SACK" as show in step 5a? good idea. we'll include that to make it more complete. > > Page 9, 1st paragraph under Figure 1: change "(P1, P2, P3, P4)" to "(P0, P1, > P2, P3)" to match both the figure and the following text. > > Page 14, 1st paragraph after list item #2: change "round trip" to "round-trip". > > Page 16, 2nd paragraph: append a comma after "observed". > > Page 17, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: append a comma after "temporary". > > Page 18, 1st paragraph after "now >=" formula, 1 sentence: change "round trip" > to "round-trip". > > Page 18, 2nd to last paragraph, 1st sentence: change "left hand" to "left-hand". > > Page 20, 2nd to last paragraph, 2nd sentence: change "implementation-specific" > to "implementation specific". > > Page 21, last paragraph, 1st sentence: the pointer to the earlier section is > oddly constructed, using doubled single quotes and capitalization that doesn't > even match the referenced section (6.1). It would be better, in my opinion, > just to give a pointer to the section number. sorry will replace w/ section pointer directly > > Page 25, item #3, 1st sentence: change "are" to "is" as flight is singular. > > Page 26, 1st partial paragraph, 1st full sentence: change "data-centers" to > "data centers". > > Page 27, section 9.4, 1st sentence: delete "time" or alternatively insert "a" > before "longer". > > -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
