Subject: [ippm] thoughts on draft-ietf-ippm-btc-framework-04.txt

From: "Matthew J Zekauskas" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 02:52:52 -0500

I did a thorough read of the document, and have one point that
might be worth a discussion.  In section 1, you define
BTC as data_sent / elapsed_time, where data_sent represents
the unique "data" bytes transferred.  To me, this means
BTC is bytes/sec.  I believe Treno and cap both report(ed?)
in bits/sec.   I think the units should explicitly be bits/sec
(as you do in section 3.1 for congestion avoidance capacity).

Some other nits:

In section 3.1, at the end of the first paragraph you mention
"(except the single segment Slow-Start that is permitted to
follow recovery, as discussed in section 2.3)".  It's not
section 2.3 of this document; I assume there should be a reference
here.

In section 2, the first two bulleted points are implicit MUSTs;
the final three are explicit MUSTs.  The wording in the first
two should probably change.  Similarly, I think the "should"
should be uppercased in the final sentence of section 2.

--Matt Z.

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
[email-masked]
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm