Last Call Review of draft-ietf-aqm-codel-07

Request Review of draft-ietf-aqm-codel
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-03-27
Requested 2017-03-13
Authors Kathleen Nichols, Van Jacobson, Andrew McGregor, Jana Iyengar
Draft last updated 2017-03-25
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Yoav Nir (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -07 by Fernando Gont (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Fernando Gont 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-aqm-codel-07-genart-lc-gont-2017-03-25
Reviewed rev. 07 (document currently at 10)
Review result Ready with Issues
Review completed: 2017-03-25


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


Document: draft-ietf-aqm-codel-07
Reviewer: Fernando Gont
Review Date: 2017-03-25
IETF LC End Date: 2017-03-27
IESG Telechat date: 2017-04-13

The document is well written. However, there seem to be too many details that are left out in other associated documents. Whereas such details (including figures) are needed to understand this document, they should be included here. Either provide full explanations or summarize the outcome without details (there's text that somehow relies on the reading finding such figures elsewhere).

Major issues:
* Section 5.1, page 16:
>    A more detailed explanation with many pictures can be found in
> .

Unless I'm missing something, if this document is specifying CoDel, then all such details should be here.

Minor issues:
* General:
The document would benefit from a terminology section. For example, only well into the I-D one finds definitions of terms such as "sojourn times" or "target setpoint". Not sure if those terms are supposed to be trivial/obvious to most people reading this document, but their non-definition left me trying to figure out what the terms were about before I was ale to better understand what you were describing.

Page 3, Section 1:
>    o  simple and efficient implementation (can easily span the spectrum
>       from low-end, linux-based access points and home routers up to
>       high-end commercial router silicon)
There seems to be an unnecesary implicit "judgement" here, associating linux-based with low-end, and commercial with high end. I suggest you modify the text.

Page 10:
>            count_ = (delta > 1 && now - drop_next_ < 16*interval_)?

For clarity, I'd use additional parenthesis here.

Nits/editorial comments: 
* Page 17:
>  The power vs. f curve for any AIMD TCP is monotone decreasing. 

Please expand the acronym.

* Page 17:
>    simulation that this result holds for Reno, Cubic, and
>    Westwood[TSV84].

Missing space.