Document: draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb Title: A Non-Queue-Building Per-Hop Behavior (NQB PHB) for Differentiated Services Reviewer: Robert Sparks Review result: Ready with Nits Summary: Ready with nits for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC The document has no art area specific issues to address. It does have an unusual requirement to hold publication on a missing Informative reference and intentionally points into the appendix of an obsoleted RFC. Nits/Questions: What does the first sentence of the third paragraph of section 4.1 add to the document? I think the document says the same thing with the sentence removed. In the fourth paragraph of section 4.1, should "consider implementing" be "consider using"? At "microflow state is exhausted", consider something like "storage for microflow state is exhausted". A personal editorial opinion - feel free to ignore it: Much of this document is written in a conversational tone. It has a structure that both repeats itself and has unusual backward references. The prose could be simplified in many places without changing the meaning. The result would be easier to read, particularly for readers having to perform translation. -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
