Thanks David. That completely responds to my comments. Regards Brian
On 21/09/2017 10:45, Black, David wrote: > 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
