On 02/09/2017 09:45, Black, David wrote:
> 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.
Thanks. It's not intended as a blocking issue.
>
>> 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.
Well, my understanding is that a normative reference is needed only
when the citing document cannot be understood and implemented
without reading the cited document.
Again it's not a blocking comment - although there is a technical error
in the Last Call message: it flags the downref to 5622, but not that to 3540.
I don't know if that's a tool error or an AD error ;-).
Brian
>
> 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
