Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review: draft-ietf-aqm-fq-implementation-02

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 17:06:48 -0500

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area 
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the 
IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just like any 
other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-aqm-fq-implementation-02
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review Date: 2015-10-6
IETF LC End Date: 2015-10-15
IESG Telechat date: 2015-10-22

Summary:

This document is in fine shape and is generally ready for publication 
(caveat some minor things below); no major issues at all. One overall 
question though:

Neither the document nor the shepherd writeup explain why this document 
will be useful for future work. It may very well be (I'm no expert in 
the area), but it's at least not obvious to me that it is. You've 
already pulled the lever to start an IETF-wide Last Call, but before it 
goes to the IESG for them to work on, perhaps it would be good to say 
why the WG thinks this is useful as a permanent publication in the RFC 
series as against just a working reference document for the WG. Is some 
future WG likely to want to refer to this document when doing queue 
management work?

Presuming it is desirable to publish, here are the remainder of my 
comments. Some of them are right on the line between "minor issue" and 
"editorial" (they're editorial, but did cause some confusion for me), so 
I just grouped them all together here.

Minor issues and nits/editorial comments:

In 2.1.3, calling out any author by name is a bit weird in an IETF 
document, but in this case the reference is to RFC 7141, an IETF BCP. 
While I know Bob's a smart guy and I'm sure he contributed substantially 
to that document, I don't think calling out a just one author of an IETF 
consensus document is appropriate. (I think it's stylistically a little 
weird to use author names in general in IETF documents, but at least in 
two of the other cases, it's a single author of a non-IETF document; 
calling out Shreedhar and not Varghese is still weird to me, though I 
understand it is common practice in academic literature. If it were me, 
I'd reference the title, not the author. That said, you're going to have 
to fight it out with the RFC Editor regarding whether those URLs are 
"stable references".)

In 2.2, second sentence: The *algorithm* isn't empty or not empty, the 
*queue* is empty or not empty. This had me really confused for a bit. 
Please fix the sentence.

In 2.2.1ff: Instead of "a method, called 'enqueue'", say "an enqueue 
method". Personally, I'd prefer "function" or "operation" instead of 
"method" throughout, but that's your choice really. (Using "a method, 
called 'enqueue'" implies an actual implementation in a particular kind 
of programming language.) Whichever terminology you choose, pick one and 
stick to it throughout the document. Right now you switch. (Obviously 
the same comment for "a method, called 'dequeue'".)

In 2.2.2 and 2.2.3, each in the 3rd paragraph, the verb "removes" does 
not have a subject. I think you need to say "the dequeue function" 
somewhere in each sentence.

In 2.2.2, your reference to using a hash as a classifier threw me. I 
figured out what you meant, but it was an unfamiliar concept to me. But 
I'm also not sure why it's useful to call out a particular kind of 
classifier in the first place. I'd think it would be better to just 
describe generally how a classifier can be used to put data into 
different queues. (And shouldn't this be part of the enqueue paragraph? 
Are classifiers used to dequeue?)

In 2.2.4, last paragraph: WRR is not defined. Did you mean DRR?

In 4, paragraph 2, s/a mark/mark

I hope that's helpful.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 14:25:01 +0100

Thanks for the review, Pete. Authors, did you have any responses to the points that Pete is making?

FWIW, I think that the algorithm/queue empty and WRR issues need a fix, and I also agree with Pete on RFC/author name reference issue,

Jari

---

From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 15:47:29 +0000

Thanks Pete. I had updated the draft on October 12 in response to working group comments, so the diff I'm sending is against -02 (which you reviewed) and includes those changes. I have attached a -04 version, which I plan to post when the repository opens. If you have other comments or are not satisfied with the changes, it still has room to change.

> On Oct 6, 2015, at 6:06 PM, Pete Resnick <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
> 
> http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> This document is in fine shape and is generally ready for publication (caveat some minor things below); no major issues at all. One overall question though:
> 
> Neither the document nor the shepherd writeup explain why this document will be useful for future work. It may very well be (I'm no expert in the area), but it's at least not obvious to me that it is. You've already pulled the lever to start an IETF-wide Last Call, but before it goes to the IESG for them to work on, perhaps it would be good to say why the WG thinks this is useful as a permanent publication in the RFC series as against just a working reference document for the WG. Is some future WG likely to want to refer to this document when doing queue management work?
> 
> Presuming it is desirable to publish, here are the remainder of my comments. Some of them are right on the line between "minor issue" and "editorial" (they're editorial, but did cause some confusion for me), so I just grouped them all together here.
> 
> In 2.1.3, calling out any author by name is a bit weird in an IETF document, but in this case the reference is to RFC 7141, an IETF BCP. While I know Bob's a smart guy and I'm sure he contributed substantially to that document, I don't think calling out a just one author of an IETF consensus document is appropriate. (I think it's stylistically a little weird to use author names in general in IETF documents, but at least in two of the other cases, it's a single author of a non-IETF document; calling out Shreedhar and not Varghese is still weird to me, though I understand it is common practice in academic literature. If it were me, I'd reference the title, not the author. That said, you're going to have to fight it out with the RFC Editor regarding whether those URLs are "stable references".)
> 
> In 2.2, second sentence: The algorithm isn't empty or not empty, the queue is empty or not empty. This had me really confused for a bit. Please fix the sentence.
> 
> In 2.2.1ff: Instead of "a method, called 'enqueue'", say "an enqueue method". Personally, I'd prefer "function" or "operation" instead of "method" throughout, but that's your choice really. (Using "a method, called 'enqueue'" implies an actual implementation in a particular kind of programming language.) Whichever terminology you choose, pick one and stick to it throughout the document. Right now you switch. (Obviously the same comment for "a method, called 'dequeue'".)
> 
> In 2.2.2 and 2.2.3, each in the 3rd paragraph, the verb "removes" does not have a subject. I think you need to say "the dequeue function" somewhere in each sentence.
> 
> In 2.2.2, your reference to using a hash as a classifier threw me. I figured out what you meant, but it was an unfamiliar concept to me. But I'm also not sure why it's useful to call out a particular kind of classifier in the first place. I'd think it would be better to just describe generally how a classifier can be used to put data into different queues. (And shouldn't this be part of the enqueue paragraph? Are classifiers used to dequeue?)
> 
> Pete Resnick http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/ <http://www.qualcomm.com/%7Epresnick/>

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 11:09:20 -0500

All of the changes you made look fine.

You changed the reference to Brisoce, but didn't change McKenny, 
Shreedar, or Zhang. I still think you should.

You missed the nit in section 4, paragraph 2 (s/a mark/mark).

There's still no explanation of why this is likely to be a useful 
document in the future (which may be more for the shepherd writeup than 
for the document itself, and given that the IESG is already doing their 
work, may be moot).

pr

On 22 Oct 2015, at 10:47, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:

> Thanks Pete. I had updated the draft on October 12 in response to 
> working group comments, so the diff I'm sending is against -02 (which 
> you reviewed) and includes those changes. I have attached a -04 
> version, which I plan to post when the repository opens. If you have 
> other comments or are not satisfied with the changes, it still has 
> room to change.
>
>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by 
>> the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like 
>> any other last call comments.
>>
>> http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq 
>> Neither the document nor the shepherd writeup explain why this 
>> document will be useful for future work. It may very well be (I'm no 
>> expert in the area), but it's at least not obvious to me that it is. 
>> You've already pulled the lever to start an IETF-wide Last Call, but 
>> before it goes to the IESG for them to work on, perhaps it would be 
>> good to say why the WG thinks this is useful as a permanent 
>> publication in the RFC series as against just a working reference 
>> document for the WG. Is some future WG likely to want to refer to 
>> this document when doing queue management work?
>>
>> comments. Some of them are right on the line between "minor issue" 
>> and "editorial" (they're editorial, but did cause some confusion for 
>> me), so I just grouped them all together here.
>>
>> While I know Bob's a smart guy and I'm sure he contributed 
>> substantially to that document, I don't think calling out a just one 
>> author of an IETF consensus document is appropriate. (I think it's 
>> stylistically a little weird to use author names in general in IETF 
>> documents, but at least in two of the other cases, it's a single 
>> author of a non-IETF document; calling out Shreedhar and not Varghese 
>> is still weird to me, though I understand it is common practice in 
>> academic literature. If it were me, I'd reference the title, not the 
>> author. That said, you're going to have to fight it out with the RFC 
>> Editor regarding whether those URLs are "stable references".)
>>
>> In 2.2, second sentence: The algorithm isn't empty or not empty, the 
>> queue is empty or not empty. This had me really confused for a bit. 
>> Please fix the sentence.
>>
>> called 'enqueue'" implies an actual implementation in a particular 
>> kind of programming language.) Whichever terminology you choose, pick 
>> one and stick to it throughout the document. Right now you switch. 
>> (Obviously the same comment for "a method, called 'dequeue'".)
>>
>> In 2.2.2 and 2.2.3, each in the 3rd paragraph, the verb "removes" 
>> does not have a subject. I think you need to say "the dequeue 
>> function" somewhere in each sentence.
>>
>> figured out what you meant, but it was an unfamiliar concept to me. 
>> But I'm also not sure why it's useful to call out a particular kind 
>> of classifier in the first place. I'd think it would be better to 
>> just describe generally how a classifier can be used to put data into 
>> different queues. (And shouldn't this be part of the enqueue 
>> paragraph? Are classifiers used to dequeue?)
>>

---

From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 16:45:17 +0000

See attached. Sorry for the oversight.

> On Oct 22, 2015, at 12:09 PM, Pete Resnick <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> You changed the reference to Brisoce, but didn't change McKenny, Shreedar, or Zhang. I still think you should.
> 
> There's still no explanation of why this is likely to be a useful document in the future (which may be more for the shepherd writeup than for the document itself, and given that the IESG is already doing their work, may be moot).
> 
> pr
> 
> On Oct 6, 2015, at 6:06 PM, Pete Resnick [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq> http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> aqm mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 12:48:26 -0500

You missed the Zhang reference in 2.2.5. Otherwise fine.

pr

On 22 Oct 2015, at 11:45, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:

>> document in the future (which may be more for the shepherd writeup 
>> than for the document itself, and given that the IESG is already 
>> doing their work, may be moot).
>>
>> pr
>>
>> On Oct 6, 2015, at 6:06 PM, Pete Resnick [email-masked] 
>> <mailto:[email-masked]> wrote:
>>
>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>

---

From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 19:56:25 +0000

> On Oct 22, 2015, at 1:48 PM, Pete Resnick <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 15:59:51 -0400

Thanks - LGTM.

Alia