I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
Document: draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-guidelines-09
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 12 Aug 2008
IESG Telechat date: 14 Aug 2008
Summary:
This draft is mostly ready for publication as a BCP. I have some
primarily editorial comments that should be considered prior to final
publication.
Comments:
IDNITS reports an outdated reference for draft-ietf-nsis-ntlp-15.
Section 3.1.1, paragraph 3:
I think this paragraph may be confusing to some implementors, in that
you suggest monitoring packet-loss to determine fair bandwidth
competition with UDP. A few worlds elaborating on how packet-loss
relates to fair use of bandwidth would be helpful. An example would
help even more.
Section 3.1.2, paragraph 1:
Should I take this to mean that implementing TFRC is insufficient for
low-volume applications, and that they should follow the guidelines in
this section even if they implement TFRC? If so, this conflicts with
the previous statement that applications implementing TFRC do not need
to worry about the other recommendations in section 3.1.
Paragraph 3:
The few sentences seem redundant with previous paragraph. Given that
they are about pre-determined initial intervals, I assume they fit
better in this paragraph than the previous.
Section 3.1.3, numbered list:
Item 1 assumes all IP-based payloads are congestion-controlled, while
2 explicitly calls out non-congestion controlled IP-based payloads. I
assume the intent was for item 1 to refer just to congestion-
controlled IP-based payloads.
Section 3.4, paragraph 1:
I'm not sure what what the practical meaning of "a coding point of
view" is in this context.
Section 3.5, paragraph 6, last sentence:
This advice seems counter to the idea that applications should be
designed to work on the internet at large, rather than for some
specific network configuration. Perhaps you meant to say "The
deployers of applications should investigate..."?
Section 3.5, last paragraph:
This first few sentences of this paragraph are redundant with previous
text in this section.
Section 3.6, paragraph 3, first sentence:
Sentence is ambiguous as to whether "with an IP source address..."
refers to the received datagram or the one being sent in response. I
think the sentence would be clearer if you just removed the text "in
reply...UDP datagrams".
Paragraphs 4 and 5:
Is there any guidance associated with these paragraphs?
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
