Subject: [tcpm] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn-11: (with COMMENT)

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2018 19:51:48 -0700

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn-11: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for a well-written and easy-to-understand document. I find the proposed
experiment quite interesting.

I have a small number of editorial nits that you may want to address if you
produce another version of the document.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I-D Nits reports:

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC7713' is defined on line 538, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

General:

  When used as a compound adjective, "congestion control" should be hyphenated.
  e.g.:

  * congestion-control algorithm(s)
  * congestion-control mechanism(s)
  * congestion-control response
  * congestion-control behaviour

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§1:

>  Recognizing these changes in modern AQM practices,
>  the strict requirement that ECN CE signals be treated identically to
>  inferred packet loss have been relaxed [RFC8311].  This document

Nit: "...has been..."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§12.2:

>  [BUFFERBLOAT]
>             Gettys, J. and K. Nichols, "Bufferbloat: Dark Buffers in
>             the Internet", November 2011.

This seems incomplete. I would suggest something more like:

   [BUFFERBLOAT]
              Gettys, J. and K. Nichols, "Bufferbloat: Dark Buffers in the
              Internet", ACM Queue 9, 11, DOI 10.1145/2063166.2071893,
              November 2011, https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2071893

---

From: Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 08:09:07 +0100

Adam,

Thanks for the comments.
It would be very unusual to hyphenate "congestion control",
so I'd suggest leaving this as-is to be consistent with other RFCs.

I plan to incorporate the other corrections in the next edit.

Gorry

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 02:25:10 -0500

> so I'd suggest leaving this as-is to be consistent with other RFCs.

You can, of course, do what you want here, but I'll note that RFC 7233 
is pretty clear about the guidelines used for editorial matters:

>     The world of technical publishing has generally accepted rules for
>     grammar, punctuation, capitalization, sentence length and complexity,
>     parallelism, etc.  The RFC Editor generally follows these accepted
>     rules as defined by the Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS) [CMOS], with a
>     few important exceptions to avoid ambiguity in complex technical
>     prose and to handle mixtures of text and computer languages, or to
>     preserve historical formatting rules.

And CMOS §7.85 indicates that hyphenation is called for in these 
circumstances.

/a

---

From: "Scharf, Michael" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 07:32:56 +0000

For what it is worth, RFC 5681 uses the term "congestion control algorithm". IMHO we should not change the term.

Michael

________________________________
Von: Adam Roach [[email-masked]]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. September 2018 09:25
An: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; Michael Tüxen; The IESG; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Betreff: Re: Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn-11: (with COMMENT)

Thanks for the comments.

You can, of course, do what you want here, but I'll note that RFC 7233 is pretty clear about the guidelines used for editorial matters:

And CMOS §7.85 indicates that hyphenation is called for in these circumstances.

/a