Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-aqm-dualq-coupled-24
review-ietf-tsvwg-aqm-dualq-coupled-24-genart-lc-holmberg-2022-08-23-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-aqm-dualq-coupled
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 25)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2022-07-21
Requested 2022-07-07
Authors Koen De Schepper , Bob Briscoe , Greg White
Draft last updated 2022-08-23
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -24 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -24 by Sheng Jiang (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Christer Holmberg
State Completed
Review review-ietf-tsvwg-aqm-dualq-coupled-24-genart-lc-holmberg-2022-08-23
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/1WR0V1l2Vh7yUfnVUwzS1t3H2MY
Reviewed revision 24 (document currently at 25)
Result Almost Ready
Completed 2022-08-23
review-ietf-tsvwg-aqm-dualq-coupled-24-genart-lc-holmberg-2022-08-23-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-tsvwg-aqm-dualq-coupled-24

Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
Review Date: 2022-08-23
IETF LC End Date: 2022-07-21
IESG Telechat date: 2022-08-25

Summary:

The content and technology of the document is outside the area of expertise, so
my comments are mainly related to the readability of the document. I list
everything as Nits/editorial issues, eventhough some could also be considered
Minor issues.

Major issues:

N/A

Minor issues:

N/A

Nits/editorial comments:

ABSTRACT:

I think the Abstract is too long. Also, it starts with the "This specification
defines..." sentence. I think it should start with a few sentences on what the
problem is, and then indicate what the document defines in order to solve that
problem.

INTRODUCTION (Section 1):

In the beginning of the Section there is a "This document specifies a
framework..." statement. Then, there is a similar statement at the end of
Section 1.1., which is only supposed to describe the problem statement - not
the solution. There is also a Scope section (1.2) and a Features section (1.4),
but it is quite difficult to separate between Scope and Features.

SECTION 2:

It seems like the actual requirements for the framework are not presented until
Section 2.5. I think the requirements should come earlier, before the solution.

SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS (Section 4):

There is quite a bit of text in the Security Considerations. In general that is
not a bad thing :)

My question is whether the content is actually about security? Much seem to be
more "operational" issues.