Subject: [Gen-art] Review: draft-sandlund-rfc4996bis-02

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 16:27:38 -0400

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-sandlund-rfc4996bis-02
     RObust Header Compression (ROHC): A Profile for TCP/IP (ROHC-TCP)
Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
Review Date: 16-July-2012
IETF LC End Date: Past
IESG Telechat date: 19-July-2012

Summary:  This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.
(I am guessing that I am confused about the major issue below.)

Major issues:
     In section 5.2.2.2 on negative acknowledgments the text says that 
the compress must ... "unless it has confidence that information sent 
after the packet being acknowledged already provides a suitable response 
..."  In the abstract, the sounds great.  If you know that you have 
solved the problem, don't worry about it.  But since this is the 
specific response to the NACK, it is very unclear what would constitute 
"confidence".  (Other places that refer to gaining confidence provide 
specific descriptions of how it is gained.  The primary methods for 
gaining confidence are receiving acks or sufficient transmissions.  If 
all that is meant here is sufficient transmissions, then saying that 
would be helpful.)

Minor issues:
     It seems to me that the labeling of entire sections as Informative 
or Normative is not particularly helpful.  It is unlikely to confuse 
anyone, so I don't see any harm in it either.  It just seems odd.

Nits/editorial comments: