From nobody Mon Dec 1 07:30:17 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F6CB1A1EF5; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 07:30:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tqrs1DUr9n92; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 07:30:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD9C81A1EFC; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 07:30:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from unnumerable.local ([173.64.248.98]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.9/8.14.7) with ESMTP id sB1FU466082499 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 1 Dec 2014 09:30:04 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [173.64.248.98] claimed to be unnumerable.local Message-ID: <547C8977.40307@nostrum.com> Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 09:29:59 -0600 From: Robert Sparks User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: General Area Review Team , conex@ietf.org, "ietf@ietf.org" , draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech.all@tools.ietf.org References: <53E1377A.5010906@nostrum.com> In-Reply-To: <53E1377A.5010906@nostrum.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/conex/UFGvRD7T3gXlSLo2tCWcm6iiYA4 Subject: [conex] Genart telechat review: draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech-13 X-BeenThere: conex@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Congestion Exposure working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 15:30:12 -0000 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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech-13 Reviewer: Robert Sparks Review Date: 1 Dec 2014 IETF LC End Date: past IESG Telechat date: 4 Dec 2014 Summary: Ready for publication as an Informational RFC This revision addresses my question below. RjS On 8/5/14 2:58 PM, Robert Sparks wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > > . > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > you may receive. > > Document: draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech-12 > Reviewer: Robert Sparks > Review Date: 5-Aug-2014 > IETF LC End Date: 8-Aug-2014 > IESG Telechat date: Not on an upcoming telechat agenda > > Summary: Ready for publication as Informational > > This document handles a complex description problem in a very > accessible way. > Thank you for the effort that has gone into creating it. > > One minor point to double-check: > > This document goes out of its way to push decisions about measuring in > packets, > bytes, or other units to the concrete encoding proposals. RFC6789 was > explicit > about conex exposing a metric of congestion-volume measured in bytes. > > RFC6789 was published a couple of years ago - has that part of it > become stale? > If so, it would be good for this document to explicitly call that out. > > If not, (most of section 4.6 goes back to -04 which predates RFC6789), > does this document need to retain the this flexibility in its > description? > From nobody Thu Dec 4 05:28:50 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFED21A1A68; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 05:28:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pSJRwmkWipM4; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 05:28:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAE751A1AB1; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 05:28:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E37A32CC5D; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 15:28:12 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iAXNLI27hrGG; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 15:28:12 +0200 (EET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 342252CC4D; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 15:28:12 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_DCB7EE98-AAD5-4F83-9059-22269D3A7646"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Jari Arkko In-Reply-To: <547C8977.40307@nostrum.com> Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 15:28:11 +0200 Message-Id: <8E1D276E-F093-4FAD-BB5F-A6D36799ACEF@piuha.net> References: <53E1377A.5010906@nostrum.com> <547C8977.40307@nostrum.com> To: Robert Sparks X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/conex/xVXTSYHtKm1bpGHxrRppWRw1kUQ Cc: General Area Review Team , draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech.all@tools.ietf.org, conex@ietf.org Subject: Re: [conex] [Gen-art] Genart telechat review: draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech-13 X-BeenThere: conex@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Congestion Exposure working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 13:28:41 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_DCB7EE98-AAD5-4F83-9059-22269D3A7646 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Thanks, all! Jari On 01 Dec 2014, at 17:29, Robert Sparks wrote: > 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>. >=20 > Please wait for direction from your document shepherd > or AD before posting a new version of the draft. >=20 > Document: draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech-13 > Reviewer: Robert Sparks > Review Date: 1 Dec 2014 > IETF LC End Date: past > IESG Telechat date: 4 Dec 2014 >=20 > Summary: Ready for publication as an Informational RFC >=20 > This revision addresses my question below. >=20 > RjS >=20 > On 8/5/14 2:58 PM, Robert Sparks wrote: >> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on >> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at >>=20 >> . >>=20 >> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments >> you may receive. >>=20 >> Document: draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech-12 >> Reviewer: Robert Sparks >> Review Date: 5-Aug-2014 >> IETF LC End Date: 8-Aug-2014 >> IESG Telechat date: Not on an upcoming telechat agenda >>=20 >> Summary: Ready for publication as Informational >>=20 >> This document handles a complex description problem in a very = accessible way. >> Thank you for the effort that has gone into creating it. >>=20 >> One minor point to double-check: >>=20 >> This document goes out of its way to push decisions about measuring = in packets, >> bytes, or other units to the concrete encoding proposals. RFC6789 = was explicit >> about conex exposing a metric of congestion-volume measured in bytes. >>=20 >> RFC6789 was published a couple of years ago - has that part of it = become stale? >> If so, it would be good for this document to explicitly call that = out. >>=20 >> If not, (most of section 4.6 goes back to -04 which predates = RFC6789), >> does this document need to retain the this flexibility in its = description? >>=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art --Apple-Mail=_DCB7EE98-AAD5-4F83-9059-22269D3A7646 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJUgGFrAAoJEM80gCTQU46qHm0QAMeVSjmFfEkQ2rhvHXo7EJpm rOOWvBt78nFIMj3g1Xpg09jpCZWL+GIXDfYc5Op8WwJd7d3/BcOlwGxSZEK3KV29 zfQHO8r9oxmlLHZ6pRPeRXDUimXm70kIKYaklj1ANIDaQJ7LVTGgdQ2XgLXT00FU si8mJ61MP4QopI11jSYR6Jczd233rYSKDTf3073+VqBWB1kgyTm1nYtjhsR5thrU BQ7XTqR2zx90Deh8IoMjImINajSgGRPnPiYqzl2B1U9MnZCDM54Fxr3jhg97UK9s EeSApRx5L7i5m5SqFR2KLnsRAZ0O/PUg0GdVzu7bR0XaP9Wwzzj1/kQzP26MbP5o 0r/qORslKpN+ggwBcRIX+gmoNyf2GWBwuvHCk+RQ8jOffe0QBj2Llvzdgg86886o gjTBoAyb4AbiBD0EE5/rCwUJPf6YbaXN4z/FoxzLfopviFpA89xDemziW+1WSQZo S48DK3uNR2Clyq7hfbZ+YsLtwjcCvcZr9Eru/VI3E0R1aMZNn6Wk15vIOwUApLEW HSKXttD52tsYrP9qlZsGsiUYfQuotC4WysTTVO+5U5Ci1GSs9VRBGnzUTf7bk2l7 15b1TLQbg++x8slFz3N0zZiSmYGRHe0TLcHnqr84r8+PvUguy0HVcBjIbmHmUBqz cHMI7OVumZxRb0c8Vhoh =WZow -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_DCB7EE98-AAD5-4F83-9059-22269D3A7646--