Subject: [tcpm] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tcpm-rack-14

From: Peter Yee via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2020 15:06:06 -0800

Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review result: Ready with Nits

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

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-tcpm-rack-14
Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review Date: 2020-12-06
IETF LC End Date: 2020-11-30
IESG Telechat date: 2020-12-17

Summary: This is a well-written draft specifying an efficient scheme for
detecting and recovering from TCP segment loss. There are a few minor nits that
should be corrected prior to publication, but to the extent that I understand
this specification, I don't see any major or minor flaws. [Ready with nits]

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:

General:

For all occurrences of "i.e." and "e.g.", make sure that they are consistently
followed by a comma. (Like I said, nits.)

Specific:

Page 7, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: change: "DUPTHRESH" to "DupThresh". This
appears to be only use of all caps for the term and it does not appear as such
in RFC 6675.

Page 9, Figure 1: while I understand what is being shown, I'm not a fan of
having the "<--" followed by things like "Receive P0" as this is not a
transmission by the TCP data receiver in the figure. The ACKs and SACKs are
fine on those lines, but I think the receives should be shown on the same line
as the sends.

Page 9, Figure 1, step 7a: why is there no "receive SACK" as show in step 5a?

Page 9, 1st paragraph under Figure 1: change "(P1, P2, P3, P4)" to "(P0, P1,
P2, P3)" to match both the figure and the following text.

Page 14, 1st paragraph after list item #2: change "round trip" to "round-trip".

Page 16, 2nd paragraph: append a comma after "observed".

Page 17, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: append a comma after "temporary".

Page 18, 1st paragraph after "now >=" formula, 1 sentence: change "round trip"
to "round-trip".

Page 18, 2nd to last paragraph, 1st sentence: change "left hand" to "left-hand".

Page 20, 2nd to last paragraph, 2nd sentence: change "implementation-specific"
to "implementation specific".

Page 21, last paragraph, 1st sentence: the pointer to the earlier section is
oddly constructed, using doubled single quotes and capitalization that doesn't
even match the referenced section (6.1). It would be better, in my opinion,
just to give a pointer to the section number.

Page 25, item #3, 1st sentence: change "are" to "is" as flight is singular.

Page 26, 1st partial paragraph, 1st full sentence: change "data-centers" to
"data centers".

Page 27, section 9.4, 1st sentence: delete "time" or alternatively insert "a"
before "longer".

---

From: Yuchung Cheng <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2020 13:28:32 -0800

> this specification, I don't see any major or minor flaws. [Ready with nits]
Thanks for the review. We will make all the changes suggested in the
next revision.

> Page 9, Figure 1, step 7a: why is there no "receive SACK" as show in step 5a?
good idea. we'll include that to make it more complete.

> just to give a pointer to the section number.
sorry will replace w/ section pointer directly

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2020 21:33:56 -0500

Peter, thanks for your review. Yuchung, thanks for your response. I entered a No Objection ballot.

Alissa

> On Dec 7, 2020, at 4:28 PM, Yuchung Cheng <ycheng=[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art