Telechat Review of draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech-13
review-ietf-conex-abstract-mech-13-genart-telechat-sparks-2014-12-01-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 13) | |
Type | Telechat Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2014-12-02 | |
Requested | 2014-11-14 | |
Authors | Matt Mathis , Bob Briscoe | |
I-D last updated | 2014-12-01 | |
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 E. Eastlake 3rd (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Robert Sparks |
State | Completed | |
Request | Telechat review on draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 13 | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2014-12-01 |
review-ietf-conex-abstract-mech-13-genart-telechat-sparks-2014-12-01-00
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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech-13 Reviewer: Robert Sparks Review Date: 1 Dec 2014 IETF LC End Date: past IESG Telechat date: 4 Dec 2014 Summary: Ready for publication as an Informational RFC This revision addresses my question below. RjS On 8/5/14 2:58 PM, Robert Sparks wrote: > 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? >