Subject: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-tcpm-3517bis-02

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 17:05:15 -0500

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-tcpm-3517bis-02
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2012-04-04
IETF LC End Date: 2012-04-11

Summary: Essentially ready for publication. I've got a few editorial comments and nits that might should be considered prior to publication.

Major issues:

None

Minor issues:

None

Nits/editorial comments:

-- IDNits reports some issues--please check.

-- The headers say the draft obsoletes 3517, but this is not mentioned in the abstract. The introduction says this is a revision of 3517, which is a bit ambiguous as to whether "revise" means to "obsolete" or "update".

-- Abstract: Any reason not to put the abstract on the first page as is currently conventional?

-- section 1, 2nd paragraph, [RFC793]

Consider moving the reference to the first TCP mention.

-- section 1, 2nd paragraph, 2nd to last sentence: "Alternate SACK-based loss recovery methods can be used in TCP as implementers see fit (as long as the alternate algorithms follow the guidelines provided in [RFC5681])."

This seems redundant with the first sentence in the paragraph.

-- section 2, definition of "Pipe": 'The algorithm is often referred to as the "pipe algorithm"'

Which algorithm? The one in this document? The "fundamentally different one"?

-- section 4:

Please expand SMSS on first mention.