Subject: [tcpm] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-tcpm-dctcp-07: (with COMMENT)

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 10:32:11 -0700

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tcpm-dctcp-07: 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-dctcp/

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

Several nits:

- The Abstract says that "This memo documents existing DCTCP implementations
([WINDOWS], [LINUX], [FREEBSD])..."  But in reality it doesn't, it just points
to those references that presumably contain implementation information.  The
[WINDOWS] reference is only used in the Abstract -- last I looked, there
shouldn't be references there [rfc7322].

- "...and deployment experience ([MORGANSTANLEY])."  Again, this draft doesn't
document deployment experience, just points at it.

- rfc7942 recommends that the Implementation Status section be removed.  If the
intent is to keep it, then consider putting a note so that the RFC Editor
doesn't remove it..

- The fact that this document describes the Microsoft Windows Server 2012
implementation should be made clear from the start (in the Introduction).  You
could then also get rid of the extra text in Section 2.

- The reference to [RFC3168-ERRATA3639] seems strange to me...not because it is
pointing to the report, but because it is Informative, when the reference to
RFC3168 is Normative.  I would assume that because Errata3639 has been
Verified, then it means it is now "part of" RFC3168, so I would think that
there's no need to mention it separately...

---

From: "Eggert, Lars" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 07:53:52 +0000

Hi,

thanks for the feddback. I have not discussed this with my co-authors, but here is my personal response:

On 2017-6-20, at 19:32, Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]> wrote:
> to those references that presumably contain implementation information.

The draft documents what those implementations implement. I'm not sure how to express this better.

>  The

We can move those references to the introduction.

> document deployment experience, just points at it.

Fair point. We'll rephrase.

> intent is to keep it, then consider putting a note so that the RFC Editor

No strong opinion here. I think we only added this since someone said we should. I think all the content is mentioned elsewhere anyway.

> could then also get rid of the extra text in Section 2.

ACK

> there's no need to mention it separately...

I don't think errata can be normative references. Hence the choice. If the IESG believes they can, we can certainly change that.

Lars

---

From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 10:08:04 +0000

On 6/21/17, 9:53 AM, "Eggert, Lars" <[email-masked]> wrote:

Lars:

Hi!

…
> I don't think errata can be normative references. Hence the choice. If the IESG 
> believes they can, we can certainly change that.

Maybe something to talk about on the Telechat…

As I said above, I think that because the report was Verified then it is now part of the RFC, so we should be able to reference it as we do the RFC.  However, I also think that referencing the RFC is enough because that should include the errata.

Alvaro.