[Last-Call] Fwd: Artart last call review of draft-ietf-ccwg-rfc5033bis-06

[Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@xxxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, Jul 10, 2024, 13:57
Subject: Re: Artart last call review of draft-ietf-ccwg-rfc5033bis-06
To: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Thanks Sean!

I incorporated your comments here: https://github.com/ietf-wg-ccwg/rfc5033bis/pull/133

PTAL, especially the new text about informational documents on the IETF stream.

Martin

On Wed, Jul 3, 2024 at 2:53 AM Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Thoughts below... "GF"

-------- Forwarded Message --------

Subject:	Artart last call review of draft-ietf-ccwg-rfc5033bis-06
Resent-Date:	Wed, 3 Jul 2024 02:18:45 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-From:	alias-bounces@xxxxxxxx
Resent-To:	ekinnear@xxxxxxxxx, francesca.palombini@xxxxxxxxxxxx, gorry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, martin.h.duke@xxxxxxxxx, zahed.sarker.ietf@xxxxxxxxx
Date:	Wed, 03 Jul 2024 02:18:44 -0700
From:	Sean Turner via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx>
Reply-To:	Sean Turner <sean+ietf@xxxxxxxxx>
To:	art@xxxxxxxx
CC:	ccwg@xxxxxxxx, draft-ietf-ccwg-rfc5033bis.all@xxxxxxxx, last-call@xxxxxxxx

Reviewer: Sean Turner
Review result: Ready with Nits

Hi! I know almost nothing about congestion control but I know these two authors
know a lot about it :)

Just a couple of questions and a couple of nits follow.

Questions:

s3.2: This section includes the following:

This document applies to proposals for congestion control algorithms
that seek Experimental or Standards Track status.

So ... if I get an Informational RFC I can do whatever I want? Wondering why
Informational isn't listed here.

>> GF: Martin, I think this is a fair question: we've allowed companies etc to specify CCs in INFO, and I'd guess the guidance applies, but it is a required part of the process for EXP/PS, what do you think we can say?

s5.3.2: The 1st para invokes some RFC 6919 like requirements language like
"ought to" and "it would be helpful". Any reason there isn't BCP 14 language
used in this para?

>> GF: The first para has an /ought/ about bringing new work - i.e. the proposal ought to discuss the topic. Maybe we can be more explicit: By the end of the process the community MUST have specified the targeted environment.

>> GF: The second para seems correct, although removing /Similarly,/ could be clearer, since this isn't needed and, at least for me, now confuses rather than helps.

s6: Is "MUST find" another way of saying there must be coommunity consensus? If so maybe:

OLD:

Unless a proposed congestion control specification
explicitly forbids use on the public Internet, the community MUST
find that it meets the criteria in these scenarios for the proposed
congestion control algorithm to progress.

NEW:

Unless a proposed congestion control specification
explicitly forbids use on the public Internet, the community MUST
reach consensus that it meets the criteria in these scenarios for the proposed
congestion control algorithm to progress.

>> GF: This new text seems fine to me ...

Nits:

s5.1.3, 2nd para: expand BDP.

s7.9, lastt para: s/(see Section 4./(see Section 4).

-- 
last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx