Last Call Review of draft-ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits-06
review-ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits-06-opsdir-lc-romascanu-2015-10-19-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2015-10-15
Requested 2015-10-09
Draft last updated 2015-10-19
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -06 by Paul Kyzivat (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -06 by Paul Kyzivat (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -06 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Dan Romascanu
State Completed
Review review-ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits-06-opsdir-lc-romascanu-2015-10-19
Reviewed rev. 06 (document currently at 08)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2015-10-19

Review
review-ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits-06-opsdir-lc-romascanu-2015-10-19






Hi,




 




I have reviewed draft-ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits-06 as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational
 aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments.




 




I believe the document is 'Ready' for publication.




 




This document is a little bit more than its title says ‘The Benefits of using Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN’. ECN was actually defined about 15 years ago, and this document describes its benefits but also provides valuable information
 as well as recommendations for implementation in network devices and hosts and for deployment in the Internet and in controlled environments. This document is informational, no new protocol is defined, so that an RFC 5706 review would not apply. However, the
 information in the document is interesting and important for operators. 




 




The following three comments are editorial in nature, triggered by difficulties in understanding some of the information (otherwise clearly presented):





 




1.

      


It would be useful to break the definition of ‘ECN-capable’ in two separate definitions for ‘ECN-capable packet’ and ‘ECN-capable network device’. It also would be good to copy or refer the definition of ECN codepoint
 from RFC 3168.




2.

      


Section 2.5 uses both CE-marking and ECN-marking terms. They are meant to be synonymous, so chosing one of them would make the text more clear




3.

      


 Sections 4.3 and 5 uses the following phrase about endpoints – ‘it can … conservatively react to congestion’. Please explain what this means.





 




Regards,




 




Dan