Brian, Thanks for the prompt review.
> Comment: Very clear from the technical standpoint. Thank you! > I understand the desire for brevity, but this bothers me a bit. What is > the reader to make of RFC3168 Section 20.2, for example? My feeling is > that a short Appendix outlining the specific updates would be useful. > There's already too much spaghetti to untangle. RFC 3168 Section 20.2 is the rationale for the ECN Nonce and hence would be deleted. Request noted, I'll consult with the draft shepherd and responsible AD to figure out whether to do this. > I see no reason why RFC3540 and RFC5622 need to be normative references > (and therefore downrefs). They aren't required reading in order to > understand this draft. OTOH, both are affected by this draft: In reverse order, this draft updates RFC 5622 - that seems to merit a normative reference. This draft also provides the rationale for the status change of RFC 3540 to Historic, which also seems to merit a normative reference. Thanks, --David > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Carpenter [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 10:02 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-05 > > Reviewer: Brian Carpenter > Review result: Ready with Issues > > Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-05 > > 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 > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-05.txt > Reviewer: Brian Carpenter > Review Date: 2017-09-01 > IETF LC End Date: 2017-09-14 > IESG Telechat date: 2017-09-14 > > Summary: Ready with (minor) issues > -------- > > Comment: Very clear from the technical standpoint. > -------- > > Minor Issues: > ------------- > > > 3. ECN Nonce and RFC 3540 > ... > > o Updates RFC 3168 [RFC3168] to remove discussion of the ECN Nonce > > and use of ECT(1) for that Nonce. The specific text updates are > > omitted for brevity. > > I understand the desire for brevity, but this bothers me a bit. What is > the reader to make of RFC3168 Section 20.2, for example? My feeling is > that a short Appendix outlining the specific updates would be useful. > There's already too much spaghetti to untangle. > > I see no reason why RFC3540 and RFC5622 need to be normative references > (and therefore downrefs). They aren't required reading in order to > understand this draft. > > -- _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
