Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lf-conv-frmwk-06

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 14:23:23 -0500

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
>
>

---

From: mike shand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:30:58 +0100

> think that's what you meant. Do you mean something like "packet loss 
We have changed this to "congestive packet loss" in the next version
> like "simulations indicate". Otherwise they come off as weasel-words [ 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_words ]
Some of these simulation results were presented to the IETF RTG-WG, but 
it doesn't seem appropriate in a framework draft such as this to go into 
significant details.
> No change. See previous comment re: weasel words.

The reference cited in the next para contains such a proof. We have 
added another citation at this pointOn 01/01/1970  wrote:
> 1. Go to https://cisco.webex.com/cisco/j.php?J=206254345&PW=NMWY2NzkxMDIy
> 2. Enter the meeting password: lfa
> 3. Click "Join Now".
> 4. Follow the instructions t
>

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 10:22:01 -0500

Hi,

This email addresses all of my concerns. Specific comments inline

Thanks!

Ben.

On Oct 19, 2009, at 9:30 AM, mike shand wrote:

>> 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:
>>
>>
>> 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"?

That helps, thanks!

>> 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 ]
> Some of these simulation results were presented to the IETF RTG-WG,  
> but it doesn't seem appropriate in a framework draft such as this to  
> go into significant details.

A compromise might be to simply say something to the effect of  
"Simulations presented to the work group indicate...". But I have no  
further objections if you thought about it, and still elected to keep  
the text as is.

> added another citation at this point

Okay, thanks, that helps.

> On 01/01/1970  wrote:

I assume this was a cut and paste error?