Skip to main content

TCP Alternative Backoff with ECN (ABE)
draft-ietf-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn-12

Yes

(Mirja Kühlewind)
(Spencer Dawkins)

No Objection

(Alissa Cooper)
(Alvaro Retana)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Ignas Bagdonas)
(Martin Vigoureux)
(Suresh Krishnan)
(Terry Manderson)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.

Adam Roach Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (2018-09-12 for -11) Unknown
Thanks for a well-written and easy-to-understand document. I find the proposed
experiment quite interesting.

I have a small number of editorial nits that you may want to address if you
produce another version of the document.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I-D Nits reports:

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC7713' is defined on line 538, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

General:

  When used as a compound adjective, "congestion control" should be hyphenated.
  e.g.:

  * congestion-control algorithm(s)
  * congestion-control mechanism(s)
  * congestion-control response
  * congestion-control behaviour

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§1:

>  Recognizing these changes in modern AQM practices,
>  the strict requirement that ECN CE signals be treated identically to
>  inferred packet loss have been relaxed [RFC8311].  This document

Nit: "...has been..."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§12.2:

>  [BUFFERBLOAT]
>             Gettys, J. and K. Nichols, "Bufferbloat: Dark Buffers in
>             the Internet", November 2011.

This seems incomplete. I would suggest something more like:

   [BUFFERBLOAT]
              Gettys, J. and K. Nichols, "Bufferbloat: Dark Buffers in the
              Internet", ACM Queue 9, 11, DOI 10.1145/2063166.2071893,
              November 2011, https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2071893
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -10) Unknown

                            
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -11) Unknown

                            
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -11) Unknown

                            
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -11) Unknown

                            
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2018-09-13 for -11) Unknown
Update: Adam pointed out I thanked the authors for an empty IANA section. I meant section _6_, the Experiment Goals section.

Thank you for section 8.

Please expand PIE and CoDel on first mention.
Benjamin Kaduk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2018-09-12 for -11) Unknown
This looks good and I'm looking forward to seeing the report on the experiment's results.

I just had one place where I was perhaps confused by the text, in Section 1:

   effectively doubles the amount of data that can be in flight, the
   maximum round-trip time (RTT) experience, and the path's effective
   RTT using the network path.

I'm probably just misreading, but "the path's effective RTT using the network path"
sounds odd with the two "paths" in there.  Is the last one referring to the
bottleneck part?
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -11) Unknown

                            
Ignas Bagdonas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -11) Unknown

                            
Martin Vigoureux Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -11) Unknown

                            
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -11) Unknown

                            
Terry Manderson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -11) Unknown