[apps-discuss] Applications Area Directorate review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-byte-pkt-congest-09
Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Thu, 28 March 2013 04:48 UTC
Return-Path: <tbray@textuality.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7C8C21F92A7 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 21:48:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.957
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.957 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_22=0.6, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5h7eZkf1gb-t for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 21:48:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x229.google.com (mail-la0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCB8521F92AB for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 21:47:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f41.google.com with SMTP id fo12so16996706lab.28 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 21:47:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:x-originating-ip:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=Hw1TRxX5ba/QkkHcIHtIjaKPCAKKG9jYBe9/ZvxdunM=; b=NfzospgksHeG2rgnS81uOcF7SoUN8SaZhLmW1HiBZKaiQTuRMOk/ZedWD22cVkdY8H GiUmmg4BHHsQbIn6I7LzRVoS9a0MJYdBsc4HuGOQNakROewuRRMupGXYuFxGABDBqHon VW+NHvBP2apXDbRhOFKjKFPSc6bxalmSH21Y9y1NGmeHqLtvlLQ5W5Y7kmTxbFs9oYKt d8qB1kbVfLd4oNP/NIUC4qUnqF5oh6lNhEhG+4EpyRBDVjXQKSjpFiNUT706OGkkmCD1 y2jbDtWspz2zR6EgoF2fEnvgTTpnMIzWZYJGxhSY0qKYqFO9ggPFO/Vn7mnUdnjP4Ztm 65aQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.68.34 with SMTP id s2mr11218330lbt.111.1364446074493; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 21:47:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.14.37 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 21:47:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [24.84.235.32]
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 21:47:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHBU6iubrVQa+AJFZnLXrArN21yjJUWsNaKuF-rnxyGGFKjYRQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
To: draft-ietf-tsvwg-byte-pkt-congest.all@tools.ietf.org, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="90e6ba30941e95e50804d8f4dbe6"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmjcFddxCcZbq5Nn8f7Pdx9BpKeQ2ytE7mAn1lJJIqwmfOqTwhuE/CV/UIGNyxd/3so5/Ve
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: [apps-discuss] Applications Area Directorate review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-byte-pkt-congest-09
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 04:48:02 -0000
I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for this draft (for background on appsdir, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate). Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-tsvwg-byte-pkt-congest-09 Title: Byte and Packet Congestion Notification Reviewer: Tim Bray Review Date: March 8, 2013 I lack expertise in the subject matter, so can only comment on the exposition and clarity. Since I, not a subject-matter expert, think I understood the analysis, and actually enjoyed reading it. I believe this draft is pretty well ready for publication, assuming subject matter experts agree with its analysis and conclusions. Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits: 1. Introduction I had a little trouble parsing “... how we should correctly scale congestion control functions with packet size...” I guess “scale A with B” is a little bit nonstandard grammar. Do you mean “scale A as a function of B” or “scale A as B increases” or what? s/notifying congestion/notifying of congestion/ s/notifies its level of congestion/notifies of its level of congestion/ s/byte-size/size/ in general, right? How else would one measure size? Might it be smart, in the spirit of tl;dr, to move Section 8 to near the front of the document? For example, the answers “it depends”, “no”, and “yes”, are too far from the questions.