Last Call Review of draft-ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests-08
review-ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests-08-opsdir-lc-baker-2020-01-13-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2020-01-21
Requested 2020-01-07
Authors Zaheduzzaman Sarker, Xiaoqing Zhu, Jian Fu
Draft last updated 2020-01-13
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Hilarie Orman (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -08 by Gyan Mishra (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -08 by Fred Baker (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Fred Baker 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests-08-opsdir-lc-baker-2020-01-13
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/fKkTpMFwt3ozgWHs2zSzgecTcSU
Reviewed rev. 08 (document currently at 11)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2020-01-13

Review
review-ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests-08-opsdir-lc-baker-2020-01-13

Reviewer: Fred Baker
Review Result: I have a few comments

I have reviewed this document 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. 

My first comment will probably be addressed by the RFC Editor, but I'll bring it up. In several places, the language of the document is awkward at best. One that sticks in my mind is the description of a network containing an 802.11b domain as containing an "abnomaly". I'm pretty sure it's a typo that a standard spell checker would have complained about, but Google thinks it's also a skin care product. The document would benefit from a spell check and an editing pass by a native English speaker.

The second relates to a specific recommendation in the document concerning 802.11b networks. The issue is that the dynamic range of 802.11 network speeds is very wide - 802.11b is theoretically capable of 11 MBPS, but typically achieves something on the order of 2-5 MBPS, while 802.11ac is theoretically capable of 1.3 GBPS. The difference in speed an introduce issues in network behavior. Where 802.11b is relevant, the document suggests that "additional test cases can be added" to cover the case. I suspect that the real issue isn't 802.11b, although the paper cited refers to it; the issue is a network containing a mix of speeds with a broad range, with the slower ones perturbing the behavior of the faster ones. I'd suggest that the authors think about the fundamental issue, and make specific recommendations appropriate to the case (such as defining effective ranges for link speeds).

(for the record, I sent this to ops-dir@, but don't seem to be able to link to the post.)