Telechat Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-05
review-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-05-genart-telechat-carpenter-2017-08-31-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-09-12
Requested 2017-08-31
Authors David Black
Draft last updated 2017-08-31
Completed reviews Genart Telechat review of -05 by Brian Carpenter (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -05 by Hilarie Orman (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -06 by Brian Carpenter (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -06 by Susan Hares (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Brian Carpenter
State Completed
Review review-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-05-genart-telechat-carpenter-2017-08-31
Reviewed rev. 05 (document currently at 08)
Review result Ready with Issues
Review completed: 2017-08-31

Review
review-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-05-genart-telechat-carpenter-2017-08-31

Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-05

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-05.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2017-09-01
IETF LC End Date: 2017-09-14
IESG Telechat date: 2017-09-14

Summary: Ready with (minor) issues
--------

Comment: Very clear from the technical standpoint.
--------

Minor Issues:
-------------

> 3.  ECN Nonce and RFC 3540
...
> o  Updates RFC 3168 [RFC3168] to remove discussion of the ECN Nonce
>    and use of ECT(1) for that Nonce.  The specific text updates are
>    omitted for brevity.

I understand the desire for brevity, but this bothers me a bit. What is
the reader to make of RFC3168 Section 20.2, for example? My feeling is
that a short Appendix outlining the specific updates would be useful.
There's already too much spaghetti to untangle.

I see no reason why RFC3540 and RFC5622 need to be normative references
(and therefore downrefs). They aren't required reading in order to
understand this draft.

--