Thanks for the review!
I've filed a PR that makes both section promotions, because I agree that they work better that way:
On Sat, Jul 6, 2024 at 7:36 AM Jürgen Schönwälder via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reviewer: Jürgen Schönwälder
Review result: Ready
The document provides guidelines for the IETF when evaluating new
proposed congestion control algorithms. While important, this document
is not directly influencing network operations.
This update grows the document from 10 pages (RFC 5033) to 25 pages. I
found the draft well structured and easy to read and all content
appears to be well justified. The draft provides helpful advice to
everybody involved in the development and evaluation of congestion
control algorithms.
- I am wondering whether section 7.1.1 really should be a sub-section
of 7.1, which implies that a network circuit breaker are viewed as a
special kind of an active queue management technique. Keeping the
sub-sections a flat list of special cases may simplify things. I
also found the title of section 7.1.1 a bit longish compared to the
other section titles. Perhaps turning 7.1.1 into "7.2 Interaction
with Network Transport Circuit Breakers" or just "7.2 Network
Transport Circuit Breakers" leads to a simpler structure.
- Similarly, I wonder whether sub-section 7.7.1 should be lifted up as
well. Path changes are not necessarily a transient event. Perhaps
7.7.1 should become "7.X Changes in the Path" (dropping sudden as
well). The point made in the text is that paths are not static, they
may change.
Perhaps the above two comments make no sense, then just ignore them.
I just thought I share them since they came up during my first time
read of the document.
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
