Hi Fred, Many thanks for helping to review this draft and sharing your thoughts. We've uploaded a revised version (-09) and have accommodated your review comments. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests-09 Please find our responses below in line. Any further suggestions are, of course, always welcome. Best, Xiaoqing, on behalf of all authors On 1/13/20, 11:32 AM, "Fred Baker via Datatracker" <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: Reviewer: Fred Baker Review result: Has Nits Reviewer: Fred Baker Review Result: I have a few comments I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. My first comment will probably be addressed by the RFC Editor, but I'll bring it up. In several places, the language of the document is awkward at best. One that sticks in my mind is the description of a network containing an 802.11b domain as containing an "abnomaly". I'm pretty sure it's a typo that a standard spell checker would have complained about, but Google thinks it's also a skin care product. The document would benefit from a spell check and an editing pass by a native English speaker. [authors] Our apologies for the typos and thanks for catching it. The updated draft has gone through one pass of editorial changes in an effort to improve its language usage. Additional revision suggestions from the RFC Editor shall be very much appreciated. The second relates to a specific recommendation in the document concerning 802.11b networks. The issue is that the dynamic range of 802.11 network speeds is very wide - 802.11b is theoretically capable of 11 MBPS, but typically achieves something on the order of 2-5 MBPS, while 802.11ac is theoretically capable of 1.3 GBPS. The difference in speed an introduce issues in network behavior. Where 802.11b is relevant, the document suggests that "additional test cases can be added" to cover the case. I suspect that the real issue isn't 802.11b, although the paper cited refers to it; the issue is a network containing a mix of speeds with a broad range, with the slower ones perturbing the behavior of the faster ones. I'd suggest that the authors think about the fundamental issue, and make specific recommendations appropriate to the case (such as defining effective ranges for link speeds). [authors] You are right that the fundamental issue is not 802.11b per se, but rather the effect of] mixing heterogeneous link speeds over a wide range. So we’ve revised the sentence in Sec.4 as: “Presence of legacy devices (e.g., ones operating only in IEEE 802.11b at a much lower PHY-layer link rate) can significantly slow down the rest of a modern Wi-Fi network. As discussed in [Heusse2003], the main reason for such anomaly is that legacy devices take much longer to transmit the same packet over a slower link than over a faster link, thereby consuming substantial portion of the transmission opportunities over the air.” [authors ]The text of Sec. 4.3.2 (Effects of presence of legacy devices) has also been revised to emphasis on the presence of devices with operating at heterogeneously link rates in these additional test cases, instead of tying them with 802.11b. (for the record, I sent this to ops-dir@, but don't seem to be able to link to the post.) -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call