I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-tcpm-3517bis-02 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2012-04-04 IETF LC End Date: 2012-04-11 Summary: Essentially ready for publication. I've got a few editorial comments and nits that might should be considered prior to publication. Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: -- IDNits reports some issues--please check. -- The headers say the draft obsoletes 3517, but this is not mentioned in the abstract. The introduction says this is a revision of 3517, which is a bit ambiguous as to whether "revise" means to "obsolete" or "update". -- Abstract: Any reason not to put the abstract on the first page as is currently conventional? -- section 1, 2nd paragraph, [RFC793] Consider moving the reference to the first TCP mention. -- section 1, 2nd paragraph, 2nd to last sentence: "Alternate SACK-based loss recovery methods can be used in TCP as implementers see fit (as long as the alternate algorithms follow the guidelines provided in [RFC5681])." This seems redundant with the first sentence in the paragraph. -- section 2, definition of "Pipe": 'The algorithm is often referred to as the "pipe algorithm"' Which algorithm? The one in this document? The "fundamentally different one"? -- section 4: Please expand SMSS on first mention.