Thank you for the review. Response to nits below:* Perhaps it would be nice to add a subsection in Section I, to explain the
update to RFC5681 There is a small paragraph that covers this. From the draft, Based on the extensive deployment experience with
CUBIC, it also moves the specification to the Standards Track,
obsoleting {{?RFC8312}}. This requires an update to {{Section 3 of !RFC5681}}, which
limits the aggressiveness of Reno TCP implementations.
Since CUBIC is occasionally more aggressive than the {{!RFC5681}}
algorithms, this document updates the first paragraph of {{Section 3 of
!RFC5681}}, replacing it with a normative reference to guideline (1)
in {{Section 3 of !RFC5033}}, which allows for CUBIC's behavior as defined
in this document.
It would be nice to add some explanation to the figure
captions We refer figures by figure number in the text which provides them context. I am not sure what would captions add without the textual context. Let us know what you think.
Thanks, Vidhi On Dec 19, 2022, at 11:19 AM, Ines Robles via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reviewer: Ines Robles
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-rfc8312bis-14
Reviewer: Ines Robles
Review Date: 2022-12-19
IETF LC End Date: 2022-12-19
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
Summary:
This document updates the specification of CUBIC to include algorithmic
improvements based on implementations and recent academic work. It also moves
the specification to the Standards Track, obsoleting RFC 8312. The document
also requires updating RFC 5681, to allow for CUBIC's occasionally faster ramp
up sending behavior.
The errata proposed in RFC 8312 was rejected, thus, not included in this new
version
I only have minor nits for this document.
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
* Perhaps it would be nice to add a subsection in Section I, to explain the
update to RFC5681 * It would be nice to add some explanation to the figure
captions
Thanks for this document,
Ines
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
|
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
