Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-alternates-01.txt

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 17:44:57 -0500

Hi, Sally,

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>.

Summary - this draft is almost ready for publication. I have some very minor 
comments that I'm sending along. Please look at these comments along with 
any other Last Call comments you may receive.

Thanks,

Spencer Dawkins

p.s. I have no editorial nits for this draft - thanks! It was clean and easy 
to understand...

-----------

- this draft is targeted as a BCP - just seems strange, because it's a lot 
more like a requirements document. If everyone else is OK with this, I'm ok 
(just confused about why considerations for additional work on ECN would be 
a BCP).

- In Figure 1, I THINK the "Old Router" is actually an "Old Router 
Experiencing Congestion" - is this correct? If so, labeling the router as 
"experiencing congestion" would have helped me - at first glance, the figure 
seems to say "old routers drop non-ECN traffic", but what I think is 
actually meant is "old routers drop non-ECN traffic when they encounter 
congestion because there is no other choice". 

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

---

From: Sally Floyd <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 08:19:45 -0700

Spencer -

Many thanks for the review.

> - this draft is targeted as a BCP - just seems strange, because it's a 
> lot more like a requirements document. If everyone else is OK with 
> this, I'm ok (just confused about why considerations for additional 
> work on ECN would be a BCP).

Well, this is how I think of it.  It is not a requirements document,
in that it is not saying that we *need* alternate semantics
for the ECN document and this is what these alternate semantics
should do.  Rather, it is saying that the IETF agrees that
these are guidelines that *any* alternate semantics for the ECN
field should follow.

> Experiencing Congestion" - is this correct? If so, labeling the router 
> as "experiencing congestion" would have helped me - at first glance, 
> the figure seems to say "old routers drop non-ECN traffic", but what I 
> think is actually meant is "old routers drop non-ECN traffic when they 
> encounter congestion because there is no other choice".

Yep, you are right, this is about an "old" router that is
congested and ready to drop or mark the next arriving packet.
I added this to the caption.

- Sally
http://www.icir.org/floyd/