Hi,
This email addresses all of my concerns. Specific comments inline
Thanks!
Ben.
On Oct 19, 2009, at 9:30 AM, mike shand wrote:
Ben Campbell wrote:
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"?
We have changed this to "congestive packet loss" in the next version
That helps, thanks!
-- 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 ]
Some of these simulation results were presented to the IETF RTG-WG,
but it doesn't seem appropriate in a framework draft such as this to
go into significant details.
A compromise might be to simply say something to the effect of
"Simulations presented to the work group indicate...". But I have no
further objections if you thought about it, and still elected to keep
the text as is.
-- 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.
The reference cited in the next para contains such a proof. We have
added another citation at this point
Okay, thanks, that helps.
On 01/01/1970 wrote:
1. Go to https://cisco.webex.com/cisco/j.php?J=206254345&PW=NMWY2NzkxMDIy
2. Enter the meeting password: lfa
3. Click "Join Now".
4. Follow the instructions t
I assume this was a cut and paste error?
-- 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