Re: [AVTCORE] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-multi-stream-09

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

On 11 Nov 2015, at 9:02, Colin Perkins wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the review, some responses line. Since this has gone to 
> IETF last call, I assume these should be treated as last call 
> comments, and an update submitted after the last call period ends.

That is my preference. You can treat these as last call comments.

>
> Colin
>
>
>
>> On 9 Nov 2015, at 21:29, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Here is my AD evaluation of draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-multi-stream-09:
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Ben.
>>
>>
>> Substantive Comments:
>> =====================
>>
>> - 3.3, last paragraph: "The endpoint MUST keep its total media 
>> sending rate within
>> this share."
>>
>> Does that need to be a 2119 "MUST"? Does it create a new normative 
>> requirement, or restate an existing requirement?
>
> (4, 2nd paragraph) It’s restating an existing requirement, so could 
> perhaps be changed to “needs to”?

That works for me.

>
>> - 5: " ... the specification MUST be interpreted as each SSRC 
>> counting as a separate participant ..."
>>
>> Does that really need to be a 2119 MUST? If so, please consider 
>> avoiding a word so open to interpretation as “interpreted".
>
> This does need to be an RFC 2119 “MUST”. Maybe “for correct 
> operation in cases where endpoints have multiple SSRC values, 
> implementations MUST treat each SSRC as a separate participant in the 
> RTP session” would be clearer?

Yes, thanks.

>
>> - 5.2, Note: "... based on an TCP initial window of 4 packets, not 
>> the larger TCP initial windows..."
>>
>> I assume this means that you borrowed the window size from tcp, not 
>> that this mechanism actually uses or requires tcp, right? “Based on 
>> TCP” is a bit confusing.
>
> Right. Could change to “The above is chosen to match the TCP initial 
> window…”?

WFM.

[...]