[Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-tcpm-initcwnd-06.txt
Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com> Wed, 12 December 2012 05:24 UTC
Return-Path: <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B2EB21F8983 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 21:24:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PpIo84hJfiWq for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 21:24:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imr3.ericy.com (imr3.ericy.com [198.24.6.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3D2D21F8654 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 21:24:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) by imr3.ericy.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qBC5ONUn011708 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 11 Dec 2012 23:24:23 -0600
Received: from [164.48.125.9] (147.117.20.214) by smtps-am.internal.ericsson.com (147.117.20.178) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.279.1; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 00:24:22 -0500
Message-ID: <50C8146B.8090707@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 00:21:47 -0500
From: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: draft-ietf-tcpm-initcwnd.all@tools.ietf.org, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-tcpm-initcwnd-06.txt
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 05:24:30 -0000
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-tcpm-initcwnd-06 Reviewer: Suresh Krishnan Review Date: 2012/12/11 IESG Telechat date: 2012/12/13 Summary: This document is well written and is ready for publication as an Experimental RFC. I do have some minor comments you may wish to address. Minor ===== * Introduction Intuitively I feel that an increased value of initcwnd is useful because of the sizeable increase in the BDP (mainly due to the increase in bandwidth). Is this correct? If so, it would be worth mentioning in the introduction. * Section 2 I am not clear on why this document has to explicitly *allow* existing implementations to have smaller initcwnd . Isn't this automatically the case? "This increase is optional: a TCP MAY start with an initial window that is smaller than 10 segments." * Section 3 Not sure how the authors arrived at the following conclusion. "A larger initial window will incentivize applications to use fewer concurrent TCP connections." Since the application (e.g. browser) developer and the TCP stack developer are usually different, it is not clear why the application developer would stop using multiple concurrent connections. Can you clarify this a bit. * Section 8 Isn't this only an issue for users on slow links which *also* have low RTTs? Nits ===== * RFC6077 is listed in the references but not used in the document. Remove? * Idnits complained about a line longer than 72 chars. I located this line to be the title line of Section 6 "Disadvantages of...Connection" Thanks Suresh
- [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-t… Suresh Krishnan