Last Call Review of draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech-12
review-ietf-conex-abstract-mech-12-genart-lc-sparks-2014-08-05-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 13)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2014-08-08
Requested 2014-07-31
Authors Matt Mathis, Bob Briscoe
Draft last updated 2014-08-05
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -12 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -13 by Robert Sparks
Secdir Last Call review of -12 by Donald Eastlake (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Robert Sparks
State Completed
Review review-ietf-conex-abstract-mech-12-genart-lc-sparks-2014-08-05
Reviewed rev. 12 (document currently at 13)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2014-08-05

Review
review-ietf-conex-abstract-mech-12-genart-lc-sparks-2014-08-05

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech-12
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 5-Aug-2014
IETF LC End Date: 8-Aug-2014
IESG Telechat date: Not on an upcoming telechat agenda

Summary: Ready for publication as Informational

This document handles a complex description problem in a very accessible 
way.
Thank you for the effort that has gone into creating it.

One minor point to double-check:

This document goes out of its way to push decisions about measuring in 
packets,
bytes, or other units to the concrete  encoding proposals. RFC6789 was 
explicit
about conex exposing a metric of congestion-volume measured in bytes.

RFC6789 was published a couple of years ago - has that part of it become 
stale?
If so, it would be good for this document to explicitly call that out.

If not, (most of section 4.6 goes back to -04 which predates RFC6789),
does this document need to retain the this flexibility in its description?