Subject: [tcpm] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-16: (with COMMENT)

From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2020 04:13:12 -0700

Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-16: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for this document.  I have no significant comments, just a few nits:

1   Introduction

    This document provides guidelines for developing an understanding of
    one path property: loss

Recommend: "loss" -> "packet loss"

    (S.1) The requirements in this document apply only to the primary or
          last resort time-based loss detection.

    (S.2) The requirements for time-based loss detection mechanisms in
          this document are for the primary or "last resort" loss
          detection mechanism whether the mechanism is the sole loss
          repair strategy or works in concert with other mechanisms.

I found the wording for these two requirements to be repetitive, possibly could
be reworded and combined.

4   Requirements

    (1) As we note above, loss detection happens when a sender does not
        receive delivery confirmation within an some expected period of
        time.

Nit: Delete "an" or "some"

        Often measuring the time required for delivery confirmation is
        is framed

Nit: "is is" -> "is"

Regards,
Rob