Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp-07
review-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp-07-genart-lc-sparks-2014-10-14-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 10) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2014-10-14 | |
Requested | 2014-10-02 | |
Authors | David L. Black , Paul Jones | |
I-D last updated | 2014-10-14 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -07
by Robert Sparks
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -08 by Robert Sparks (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Tina Tsou (Ting ZOU) (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -07 by Fred Baker (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Robert Sparks |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 07 (document currently at 10) | |
Result | Ready w/nits | |
Completed | 2014-10-14 |
review-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp-07-genart-lc-sparks-2014-10-14-00
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 resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp-07 Reviewer: Robert Sparks Review Date: 14-Oct-2014 IETF LC End Date: 14-Oct-2014 IESG Telechat date: not yet scheduled for a telechat Summary: Ready with nits These are very small nits to consider. Please feel free to leave the existing text alone if these suggestions don't help. At the end of page 13, the sentence that starts "Transport protocol support for multiple"... is very long and hard to parse. I suspect it will be hard to translate. The action of changing the existing protocols is implied rather than explicit in the current wording. "current designs" is vague. I suggest this as a starting point: "Adding support for multiple QoS-based traffic classes within a single network 5-tuple to a transport protocol adds significant complexity compared to the current protocol definitions. For congestion-controlled transport protocols, network congestion information for each QoS-based traffic class would have to be disambiguated to allow congestion control to be managed separately for each such traffic class." Hopefully it can be made even simpler. In the first paragraph of 5.2, would "Such reordering may lead to unneeded retransmission, and spurious emission of retransmission control signals (such as NACK) in reliable delivery protocols (see Section 5.1)" work?