Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lf-conv-frmwk-06

[Ben Campbell <ben at estacado.net>]

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"?

> -- 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 
 ]

> -- 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.


-- 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