Peter, thanks for your review. Yuchung, thanks for your response. I entered a No Objection ballot. Alissa > On Dec 7, 2020, at 4:28 PM, Yuchung Cheng <ycheng=40google.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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". >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
