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

From: Mark Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 15:40:00 -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).

OK.  I can go either way.  Cap reports bytes, but a "bit" and a
"byte" are pretty much universal and can't be confused too much.  I
don't like the idea of using KB because that means either 1000 or
1024 bytes and even if it is specified, some people will screw it up
in their heads (some people like me!).

> 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.

OK.  I'll patch this...

> 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.

And this...

Thanks!

(And, sorry for the slow response...)

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