Thank you for the review. Response to nits below:
> * Perhaps it would be nice to add a subsection in Section I, to explain the
> update to RFC5681
There is a small paragraph that covers this. From the draft,
Based on the extensive deployment experience with
CUBIC, it also moves the specification to the Standards Track,
obsoleting {{?RFC8312}}. This requires an update to {{Section 3 of !RFC5681}},
which
limits the aggressiveness of Reno TCP implementations.
Since CUBIC is occasionally more aggressive than the {{!RFC5681}}
algorithms, this document updates the first paragraph of {{Section 3 of
!RFC5681}}, replacing it with a normative reference to guideline (1)
in {{Section 3 of !RFC5033}}, which allows for CUBIC's behavior as defined
in this document.
> It would be nice to add some explanation to the figure
> captions
We refer figures by figure number in the text which provides them context. I am
not sure what would captions add without the textual context. Let us know what
you think.
Thanks,
Vidhi
> On Dec 19, 2022, at 11:19 AM, Ines Robles via Datatracker <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Reviewer: Ines Robles
> Review result: Ready with Nits
>
> 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
>
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-14
> Reviewer: Ines Robles
> Review Date: 2022-12-19
> IETF LC End Date: 2022-12-19
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
>
> Summary:
>
> This document updates the specification of CUBIC to include algorithmic
> improvements based on implementations and recent academic work. It also moves
> the specification to the Standards Track, obsoleting RFC 8312. The document
> also requires updating RFC 5681, to allow for CUBIC's occasionally faster ramp
> up sending behavior.
>
> The errata proposed in RFC 8312 was rejected, thus, not included in this new
> version
>
> I only have minor nits for this document.
>
> Major issues: None
>
> Minor issues: None
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
>
> * Perhaps it would be nice to add a subsection in Section I, to explain the
> update to RFC5681 * It would be nice to add some explanation to the figure
> captions
>
> Thanks for this document,
> Ines
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
