On 04/04/2012 18:45, Bob Briscoe wrote:
Alexey,
Hi Bob,
Thanks for your review - we are all indebted to people like you who
commit to review stuff that you don't necessarily have an interest in.
We're concerned if you think the doc isn't understandable without
reading the I-D refs. This is meant to be the entry-point to the set
of ConEx documentation, so we intended it to be understandable without
knowing how ConEx works (beyond the high level description in the
introduction). "Understandable" here means sufficient to satisfy the
stated purpose of the doc, which is to motivate ConEx (not to
understand how it works).
Maybe I wasn't very clear: the document was understandable without
checking out the references.
The refs are intended to be used the other way round - having read
this, you should be motivated to go and read more, so it provides
pointers to what's available.
Are you sure the need to read the refs is not a symptom of your
(natural) curiosity to know how ConEx works? Is it really necessary to
know the details of how ConEx works to understand the motivation for
building it?
The second paragraph sets out the purpose of the doc:
"
This document provides the entry point to the set of documentation
about the Congestion Exposure (ConEx) protocol. It focuses on the
motivation for including a ConEx marking at the IP layer. (A
companion document, [I-D.ietf-conex-abstract-mech], focuses on the
mechanics of the protocol.)
"
I've just rechecked references to drafts and I can see them being
Informative. So thank you for your response and your document is getting
"all clear" from me.
Thank you,
Alexey
Bob
At 18:09 04/04/2012, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the
FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>
Please resolve these comments along with any other comments you may
receive.
Document: draft-ietf-conex-concepts-uses-04.txt
Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov
Review Date: 2012-04-04
IETF LC End Date: 2012-04-12
IESG Review: 2012-04-12
Summary: The document is nearly ready for publication as an
Informational RFC (see one issue below)
Major issues: none
Minor issues:
This might be pedantic, but I think some of your Informational
references are actually Normative, because they are needed to
understand the document. See "IESG Statement: Normative and
Informative References" for more details
<http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/normative-informative.html>.
This almost doesn't matter for an Informational document, however if
any of 5 drafts becomes Normative, publication of this document as an
RFC will be delayed. Still, this might be better than just getting it
published with "work in progress" references.
But otherwise this is a well written document and I enjoyed reading it.
Nits/editorial comments: none
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
