Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp-07

Request Review of draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp
Requested rev. 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 Black, Paul Jones
Draft 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 (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -07 by Fred Baker (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Robert Sparks
State Completed
Review review-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp-07-genart-lc-sparks-2014-10-14
Reviewed rev. 07 (document currently at 10)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2014-10-14


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


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)"