Subject: [tcpm] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-tcpm-newcwv-12: (with COMMENT)

From: "Barry Leiba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 13:57:08 -0700

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tcpm-newcwv-12: No Objection

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-newcwv/

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

Just a few very minor comments -- nothing that needs any discussion.

-- Section 1 --

RFC 2616 is an obsolete reference for HTTP.  The current reference is RFC
7230

   o  To incentivise the use of long-lived connections

Will you please appease my inner pedant and not say "incentivise" (which,
by the way, Chrome doesn't think is a word either)?  You can take
advantage of the previous bullet's use of "To remove the incentive for"
by using this parallel construction: "To provide an incentive for the use
of long-lived connections".

-- Section 4.2 --

   The method RECOMMENDS that the TCP SACK option [RFC2018]
   is enabled and the method defined in [RFC6675] is used to recover
   missing segments.

Even more ridiculously pedantic than the other: subjunctive mood with
"recommends", please.  Make both "is" into "be".

-- Section 4.4 --

   A TCP sender implementing this specification MUST enter the non-
   validated phase when the pipeACK is less than (1/2)*cwnd.

Given that there are "MAY"s and a "SHOULD" involved in how pipeACK is
computed, it seems rather odd to have a MUST that relates to its value. 
You couldn't possibly determine whether an implementation was doing this
"right" because there's so much variability in the value of pipeACK
anyway.  No need to discuss this, but I suggest that you just do this:

NEW
   A TCP sender implementing this specification enters the non-
   validated phase when the pipeACK is less than (1/2)*cwnd.
END