Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-aqm-fq-codel-05 (revised)

From: Elwyn Davies <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 15:59:50 +0000

Hi, Toke.

I had a look through the updated draft from today (after opsdir fixes) 
and I think it addresses all the issues and editorials that I identified 
in my LC review.  Adding the comments on the state diagram is probably 
OK.  I won't push the idea of capitalising quantum etc. any further.

In the light of Brian C's note and his exchange with Dave about labels, 
I think Dave might add a few words about using the label as a 
classification mechanism.

I think Dave also wishes to reference the longer version of Paul 
McKenney's SFQ paper, referencing an archive.org link to this paper as a 
long-term stable version.  This would be fine be me.

In the process of looking at these updates, I spotted a couple of nits 
that I missed on the previous passes:
s2, para 1:  The phraseology here is not future-proof:
OLD:
the AQM working group draft [I-D.ietf-aqm-codel].
NEW:
the IETF document [I-D.ietf-aqm-codel].
END

s3, para 2 and s4.1, para 2: (same issue in 2 places)
OLD:
source
    and destination IP and port numbers
NEW:
source
    and destination IP addresses and port numbers
END

s4.1, last para:
Boringly, these ought to have references and an expansion of GRE. I suggest
OLD:
The Linux implementation does
    this for common encapsulations known to the kernel, such as 6in4, 
IPIP and GRE tunnels.
NEW:
The Linux implementation does this for common encapsulations known to 
the kernel, such as 6in4 [RFC4213], IP-in-IP [RFC2003] and GRE (Generic 
Routing Encapsulation) [RFC2890].
END

s5.6: s/Weighed/Weighted/  (I think).  PS: A ref for WFQ would be:
/A. Demers, S. Keshav, and S. Shenker. "Analysis and simulation of a 
fair queueing algorithm./ In Journal of Internetworking Research and 
Experience, pages 3-26, October 1990. Also in Proceedings of ACM 
SIGCOMM´89, pp 3-12.

I see you incorporated the opsdir comments - check with Martin whether 
he wants you to publish the updated version before the end of last call 
since it is the day of the IESG meeting.

Thanks,
Elwyn

PS
Toke... your surname is too long!! This is the first draft I have 
noticed that the footer line runs out of space due to a combination of a 
long surname and the long month name.   It is particularly noticeable on 
the new version due to the day number taking an extra space. ;-) I don't 
think we'll bother too much about this.

/E

Sent from Samsung tablet.
-------- Original message --------
From: Toke HÃ¸iland-JÃ¸rgensen <[email-masked]>
Date: 13/03/2016 12:19 (GMT+00:00)
To: Elwyn Davies <[email-masked]>
Cc: General area reviewing team <[email-masked]>, 
[email-masked]
Subject: Re: Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-aqm-fq-codel-05

Hi Elwyn

I have now been through your comments and produced an updated version of
the draft. It is available from here:
https://kau.toke.dk/ietf/draft-ietf-aqm-fq-codel-06.html (or .txt if you
prefer).

Most of your comments I have just incorporated (variants of), with a
single stylistic exception as noted below. I *think* I managed to cover
everything, but I did this in two sittings, so something may have
slipped through the cracks, I suppose. Let me know if that is the case.

I believe Dave has replied to most of your other comments, so I won't go
through them again unless you point out something I missed. For the full
diff (of the source document), see here:
https://github.com/dtaht/bufferbloat-rfcs/commit/0d7f1963cc27d11129bcb5fe2affb90ebc6e67d3

Cheers,

-Toke

Elwyn Davies <[email-masked]> writes:

 > General: It would be helpful to capitalize Quantum throughout (or at
 > least from s3 onwards) to emphasise that it is a configured value.
 > Likewise Interval and Target parameters. Maybe also Flow and Queue as
 > they a defined terms.

I think this is the only stylistic change I haven't made. I thought it
made it more difficult to read, not less.

---

From: Dave Taht <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 11:40:04 -0700

a nit of my own is that both toke's and my names are really spelt best
with utf-8. I have heard we are apparently very near the point where
the ietf can actually do that, but I don't know the status of when or
how that can be cut over to. (?)

(I look forward very much to where we can do that - and math symbols -
and smily faces - in requirements documents)

---

From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 12:22:42 +0100

Elwyn Davies <[email-masked]> writes:

> and I think it addresses all the issues and editorials that I
> identified in my LC review. Adding the comments on the state diagram
> is probably OK. I won't push the idea of capitalising quantum etc. any
> further.

Hi Elwyn

Thanks again for your review, and for this second batch of nits; I've
pushed a new version incorporating these.

> noticed that the footer line runs out of space due to a combination of
> a long surname and the long month name. It is particularly noticeable
> on the new version due to the day number taking an extra space. ;-) I
> don't think we'll bother too much about this.

Yes, I know! However, I've thought long and hard about it and decided
not to change my name to make the IETF tools happy... ;)

-Toke