Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lf-conv-frmwk-06

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-rtgwg-lf-conv-frmwk-06
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 06 Oct 2009
IESG Telechat date: 08 Oct 2009

Summary: This document is ready for publication as an informational RFC. I have a few remaining nits that may be worth addressing if there is a new revision, or possibly in auth 48--but none are worth blocking publication.

Note: I reviewed revision 5 at last call. This review is incremental to that one. Most of my comments are addressed in revision 6.

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:

-- A few nits from my previous review resulted in no change. I don't know if these were intentional choices (which is okay), or oversights, So I will paste them below, along with any additional comments where relevant:


-- [Section 2] 2nd to last paragraph: "congestion loss"

Did you mean "congestion" or "packet loss"?


No change. To amplify, you use the term "congestion loss", which I read to mean "a reduction in congestion", i.e. a good thing. I don't think that's what you meant. Do you mean something like "packet loss due to congestion"?

-- section 5.1, second to last paragraph:

Is there a reference for the simulations?

No change. It would be nice to have some evidence (a reference, or a sentence of two describing the simulations ) to back up assertions like "simulations indicate". Otherwise they come off as weasel-words [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_words ]


-- 6.1, first paragraph:

s/"can be proved"/"can be proven"

Also, is there a reference for such a proof?

No change. See previous comment re: weasel words.


-- idnits returns the following:

  Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

== The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but was first submitted before 10 November 2008. Should you add the disclaimer?
     (See the Legal Provisions document at
     http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.).


  Checking references for intended status: Informational
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of
     draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework-11








_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]