[Iccrg] feedback on draft-irtf-tmrg-metrics?

[Sally Floyd]

Eric -

Many thanks for the feedback.

> Comments on the above draft.
>
> o  TYPO: Page 5 under revision "draft-irtf-tmrg-metrics-01a.txt"
>      second bullet item should be "Sean Moore" not Seam Moore.

Thanks, fixed.

> o  Page 14 Paragraph BEFORE section 3.4 first sentence.
>    Currently reads:
>    "...concern for environments with high-bandwidth flows."
>
>    Should it read:
>    "...concern for environments with high-bandwidth delay flows."
>
>    I think it's the tricky combo of high-bandwidth and long delay that
>    makes convergence to fairness problematic. Thoughts?

I changed it to "high-bandwidth long-delay flows".

> o  Page 14 Paragraph BEFORE section 3.4 second sentence.
>    Currently reads:
>    "...between two existing flows after a sudden change such as a 
> change in link capacity on a wireless link."
>
>    Suggestion to be more explicitly general (really):
>    "...between two existing flows after a sudden change in network 
> [characteristics|conditions], such as a change in link capacity on a 
> wireless link."

I left it how it was, because I thought it was sufficiently clear.

> o Page 15 Defining Goodput. First sentence
>    "...is defined as the fraction of useful data from all of the data
> delivered."
>
>    Should this be:
>    "...is defined as the fraction of useful data from all of the data 
> sent."
>
>     Since the following sentence further defines high goodput as
> efficient use of spectrum... data can be sent, and then NOT delivered
> (for various reasons) which effects things like efficient spectrum use 
> and buffer occupancy. The first definition does not fully capture the 
> effect.

Yep, I changed it.

> o Page 15 Section 3.5  Title and concept of "failures"
>     I'm not sure that "failures" makes sense here. This whole section
> really deals with "Misbehaving Users". Looking at the examples given:
>
>    o "Failures of the routers in using explicit feedback to end-nodes
>       or failures of end-nodes to follow the prescribed protocols."
>
> If the routers are suppose to provide explicit feedback and they are 
> not, they are "misbehaving" and if end-nodes are not following 
> prescribed protocols then they are also "misbehaving". Failure to 
> "follow" protocol standards is a form of misbehaving. I tend to think 
> of failures as more in the terms of "dead nodes", maybe more like 
> faults.
>
> If instead we really mean "non-capable nodes" e.g. non-XCP routers on 
> a XCP path. Then maybe a title more like "Robustness to Non-capable 
> and to  Misbehaving Users"

I left this one how it was, because I thought it was ok.

Many thanks.

- Sally
http://www.icir.org/floyd/