Elwyn, thank you for your review. I have entered a Discuss ballot for this document based on my own review. Lars > On 2022-6-24, at 13:02, Elwyn Davies via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Elwyn Davies > 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-ippm-rfc8321bis-02 > Reviewer: Elwyn Davies > Review Date: 2022-06-24 > IETF LC End Date: 2022-06-21 > IESG Telechat date: 2022-07-14 > > Summary: > Ready with a number of nits. I found that the discussion of possible uses > besides the core proposal to be somewhat distracting and perhaps detracts from > the value of the basic proposal. > > Major issues: > None. > > Minor issues: > > Nits/editorial comments: > Abstract: s/It could be considered/According to the classification defined in > RFC 7799, it could be considered/ > > s1.1, para 1:s/overtaking./building on/; s/in the original/that was based on > the original/ > > s1.1, last para: Delete. The change log wil not be in the final document. > > s2, para 3: s/will have the same color/will have the same notional "color"/ > > s3.1, para 6: s/shows how a flow looks like when it is split in traffic > blocks/shows how a flow appears when it is split into traffic blocks/ > > s3.1, second set of bullets: > The problem is easier to solve for multicast traffic, where load-balancing is > seldom used and static joins are frequently used to force traffic forwarding > and replication. > > Is the term 'static joins' sufficiently well-known to not need a reference? > > s3.2.2, para1: s/statistic distribution/statistical distribution/ > > s3.2.2, para2: The term 'security time gap' didn't seem obvious in this > section: Between packets with the second marking, there should be a security > time gap to avoid out-of-order issues and also to have a number of measurement > packets that are rate independent. > > I suggest 'adequate time gap'. > > s4.1, para2: s/ number of involved nodes/number of nodes involved/ > > s7, last para: This paragraph is not future proof. The two drafts referenced > are not working group drafts and it is not clear if they will eventually become > RFCs. I would be inclined to omit the paragraph or at least reduce it to just > refer to the IEEE work. It could also be moved to an appendix. > > s8, para 2: Not an academic paper! s/We used/The mechanisms described in this > document use/ > > s8, bullet 5: s/strictly related each other/strictly related to each other/ > > s8, bullet 7: Suggest replacing text with: > Verification: the methodology has been tested and deployed experimentally in > both lab and operational network scenarios performing packet loss and delay > measurements on traffic patterns created by traffic generators together with > precision test instruents and network emiulators. > > s8, bullet 11: Singleton whats???? > > s8, bullet 12: "currently, the main parameter of the method is...." Once > this becomes an RFC the parameters are set in stone - 'currently' is not a good > way of describing that state. Also the bullet asks about 'parameters'. If > there is just one parameter say that. If there are others they need to be > described here. > > > > -- > last-call mailing list > last-call@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
