Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-tcpm-accecn-reqs-07

Request Review of draft-ietf-tcpm-accecn-reqs
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2014-12-04
Requested 2014-11-21
Authors Mirja Kühlewind , Richard Scheffenegger , Bob Briscoe
I-D last updated 2014-12-04
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -07 by Brian E. Carpenter (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -07 by Brian E. Carpenter (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -07 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Linda Dunbar
State Completed
Review review-ietf-tcpm-accecn-reqs-07-opsdir-lc-dunbar-2014-12-04
Reviewed revision 07 (document currently at 08)
Result Has Issues
Completed 2014-12-04

As a member of the Operations Directorate, I was asked to review

In general, the draft is written very well. But I think the “requirements”
listed in Section 4  is more like “design consideration”. For example, the
proposed solution in 5.1 doesn’t meet the “resilience” requirement
 listed in the Section 4.

On the Page 8 under “Timeliness”, the text says “… should be delivered within
about one RTT”. But

the earlier sentence describes that it takes longer than one RTT for the  ACK
to reach the sender. Here it says that "should be within
 one RTT". Is there any particular value to set for a specific attribute to
 reach this goal?

On the Page 9 under “Accuracy”, the text says: “In the best case the new scheme
should even allow reconstruction of the exact number of payload bytes that a CE
marked packet was carrying”.

Why not using the value in the Length field of the IP header?


Linda Dunbar