Subject: [ledbat] AD review: draft-ietf-ledbat-congestion-05

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 10:18:05 +0200

High-level comment: Ready for IETF last call. Take the comments below as IETF last call comments.

Lars

>    Internet-Draft            LBE Transport Survey             February 2011

  Nit: It's not super-great to have the LBE acronym in the footer.

Section 1., paragraph 3:
>    This document is a product of the Low Extra Delay Background
>    Transport (LEDBAT) Working Group.  It aims at putting the congestion
>    control algorithm that the working group is specifying in the context
>    of the state of the art in LBE transport.  Most techniques discussed
>    here were tested in limited simulations or experimental testbeds, but
>    the LEDBAT algorithm is already widely deployed.

  It's not fully clear if "the LEDBAT algorithm" is still very similar
  to what has been shipping in BitTorrent. It may therefore be better to
  rephrase this and say that "an algorithm that is very similar to the
  initial proposal for LEDBAT has been shipping" or something like that.
  Also, you should really cite draft-ietf-ledbat-congestion when you
  talk about the LEDBAT algorithm (it currently isn't cited at all...)

Section 2., paragraph 7:
>    seen during the connections's lifetime; if it does, this condition is

  Nit: s/connections's/connection's/

Section 2.1., paragraph 3:
>       interest, and it can underly fluctuations that are not related to

  Nit: s/underly/undergo/

Section 6., paragraph 1:
>    The previous sections have shown that there is a large amount of work
>    on attaining an LBE service, and that it is quite heterogeneous in
>    nature.  What most of the discussed mechanisms have in common,
>    however, is the fact that they have only been tested in limited
>    simulations or experimental testbeds.  As we have initially stated,
>    the algorithm produced by the LEDBAT Working Group (which is itself
>    also called LEDBAT) is already under widespread deployment.

  See previous comment on Section 1.