Skip to main content

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

Request Review of draft-ietf-aqm-codel
Requested revision 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
I-D 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
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-aqm-codel by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 07 (document currently at 10)
Result Ready w/issues
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

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.