Mikael, Thanks for the review and suggestions. I will take them into account in the next revision.
-Greg On 3/30/15, 1:30 AM, "Mikael Abrahamsson" <[email protected]> wrote: >On Sun, 29 Mar 2015, Szilveszter Nadas wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> You have an interesting process to encourage mic comments. ;) >> >> Reviewed version: "draft-ietf-aqm-docsis-pie-00". > >Me too. > >Some suggestions and comments: > >Abstract: > >... > "They are commonly positioned at the > head of the bottleneck link for traffic in the upstream direction > (from the customer)," > >I find this sentence hard to read. I would suggest changes to the >abstract >along these lines (I will include _ around the changed parts) > >"DOCSIS cable modems provide broadband Internet access to over one >hundred >million users worldwide. They are commonly positioned _so that they >handle the lowering speed adaptation in the upstream direction_ (from the >customer) towards the Internet, and as a result, the impact of buffering >and bufferbloat in the cable modem can have a significant effect on user >experience. The CableLabs DOCSIS specification _(introduced in)_ 3.1 >includes requirements for cable modems to support an Active Queue >Management (AQM) algorithm that is intended to alleviate the impact that >buffering has on latency sensitive traffic, while preserving bulk >throughput performance. In addition, the CableLabs DOCSIS 3.0 >specifications have also been amended to contain similar requirements." > >I just feel that this makes it easier for a non-expert read by changing >the second sentence to not talk about "head", and clarify that later that >the AQM sections were introduced in 3.1 specification. > >Section 1. > >Here it says "CableLabs'" and in abstract it says "CableLabs" (without >'). >Is that correct? >I would recommend to add "upstream from the customer" in the second >paragraph. > >Section 3. > >The list in 3 doesn't match the 3.1-3.4 headers, so my suggestion would >be >to get rid of the list in 3 and just keep the 3.1-3.4 headers. > >Conclusion: > >Then I read A, and that seems mostly to list changes to PIE for the >DOCSIS-PIE implementation? > >What is the aim of this document? To describe in an IETF environment what >the DOCSIS-PIE implementation does? This is not stated in the abstract or >introduction. I think it would be worthwhile to put in a few lines in >either place to describe exactly what the aim of the document is, and >potentially, what it isn't. Perhaps bump the overview from section 1 to 2 >and insert an introduction there? > >It's my opinion that this is a document that is valuable to publish as an >informational draft in IETF-AQM. > > >-- >Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected] _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
