Brian,
I'm about to post the -06 version of this draft. The concern on RFC 3168
impact of the ECN nonce removal was resolved by listing the four major changes
(and you were correct that the change to Section 20.2 is subtle - I got it
wrong on my first attempt in responding to your email). Here's the specific
text that I've added to Section 3 of the draft:
The four primary updates to RFC 3168 that remove discussion of the
ECN nonce and use of ECT(1) for that nonce are:
1. Remove the paragraph in Section 5 that immediately follows
Figure 1; this paragraph discusses the ECN nonce as the
motivation for two ECT codepoints.
2. Remove Section 11.2 "A Discussion of the ECN nonce." in its
entirety.
3. Remove the last paragraph of Section 12, which states that ECT(1)
may be used as part of the implementation of the ECN nonce.
4. Remove the first two paragraphs of Section 20.2, which discuss
the ECN nonce and alternatives. No changes are made to the rest
of Section 20.2, which discusses alternate uses for the fourth
ECN codepoint.
Additional minor changes remove other mentions of the ECN nonce and
implications that ECT(1) is intended for use by the ECN nonce; the
specific text updates are omitted for brevity.
The proverbial "rest of the story" is that an RFC 3168bis effort appears to be
a good idea, e.g., as RFC 6040 has already made some visible changes. The
preferred 3168bis timing appears to be after we understand the outcomes of the
current proposed of experiments, as they're likely to result in another round
of changes to RFC 3168.
Many thanks, and chalk this up as one more instance where a GenART review has
visibly improved the quality of a draft, --David
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, September 1, 2017 7:41 PM
> To: Black, David <[email protected]>; [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-
> experimentation-05
>
> 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
