Works for me - thanks for being so quick.

Gorry

> Hi,
>
> Thank you for pointing out these issues.
> We just uploaded a -06 version that considers
> all your points.
>
> Thanks a lot.
>
> Nicolas
>
>> On 30 Jun 2015, at 15:35, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi authors,
>>
>> I've just read -05 of the document and see much more clarity and
>> precision, and that it includes most of the issues I noted. Thanks.
>>
>> There are a few minor comments (see below) that I think would be good to
>> address. most of these are minor, and could be handed with any other
>> comments in a quick revision.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Gorry
>>
>>
>> ----
>>
>>
>> Overall: /e.g./e.g.,/
>>
>> Section 1.1:
>> /in various scenarios to ensure the safety/
>> I’m not sure this is quite correct, I suspect we may mean:
>> /in a variety of scenarios to ensure the safety/
>>
>> Section 1.2:
>> /any AQM proposal must be evaluated/
>> may be better as:
>> /any AQM proposal needs to be evaluated/
>>
>> Section 1.4:
>> /AQM: there may be a debate on whether a scheduling scheme is
>>     additional to an AQM algorithm or is a part of an AQM algorithm.
>>     The rest of this memo refers to AQM as a dropping/marking policy
>>     that does not feature a scheduling scheme./
>>
>> RFC2309.bis (aka draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation) makes this
>> recommendations
>> and I think the text could be tightened by reference to this. For
>> example:
>>
>> /AQM: [draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation] separately describes the
>>     AQM algorithm implemented in a router from the scheduling of
>>     packets sent by the router.
>>     The rest of this memo refers to the AQM as a dropping/marking policy
>>     as a separate feature to any interface scheduling scheme./
>>
>>
>> Section 2.5
>> - This section introduces SUT and DUT, but these do not seem to be used
>> elsewhere, so maybe new terms do not need to defined?
>>
>> /highly RECOMMENDED/RECOMMENDED/
>> - I think the IETF keyword doesn’t need another word, and it is cleaner
>> if
>> the keyword only is used.
>>
>> Section 3
>> /set up/setup/
>> - one word.
>>
>> Section 4:
>> / It fills up
>>  unmanaged buffers until the TCP sender receives a signal (packet
>>  drop) that reduces the sending rate./
>> - Strictly speaking, this is not true - it applies to a bulk flow using
>> TCP, not to TCP itself.
>>
>> /Not all applications using TCP use the same flavor of TCP./
>> perhaps should be:
>> /Not all endpoints (or applications) using TCP use the same flavor of
>> TCP. /
>>
>>
>> /to the section 2 of /to section 2 of /
>>
>>
>> 6.  Burst Absorption
>> - add fuel stop at end of the para.
>>
>> 7.
>> /The available capacity at the physical layer/
>> could be better as:
>> /The capacity available to the schedular/
>>
>> /The scenario MAY consist of TCP NewReno flows between sender A and
>>  receiver B.  /
>> On reflexion, I think this is better:
>> /The scenario could consist of TCP NewReno flows between sender A and
>>  receiver B.  /
>> (I don’t think a keyword is appropriate here.)
>>
>> 10.2
>> /AQM proposals SHOULD highlight parts of AQM logic/
>> to / AQM proposals SHOULD highlight parts of their AQM logic/
>>
>>
>> 12.  Interaction with ECN
>>
>> - We should probably now add some explicit tests for compliance here,
>> does
>> this help:
>>
>> Section 3 of [ECN-Benefit] describes expected operation of routers
>> enabling ECN.
>>
>> AQM schemes SHOULD NOT drop or remark packets solely because the ECT(0)
>> or
>> ECT(1) codepoints are used, and when ECN-capable SHOULD set a CE-mark on
>> ECN-capable packets in the presence of incipient congestion. SHOULD
>> implement
>>
>> 12.1
>> /(ECN) [RFC3168] is an alternative/
>> - remove brackets around ECN.
>>
>> Reference
>>
>> - Please use a consistent “tag” style for ID’s - this will be preserved
>> when this is published, so be careful to name the tags in a consistent
>> way.
>>
>> TCPEVAL2013 - Format? - Work in Progress?
>>
>> Conference references: please provide place of the conference?
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aqm mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
>

_______________________________________________
aqm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm

Reply via email to