Re: [AVTCORE] AD review of draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-mix

Gunnar Hellström <gunnar.hellstrom@ghaccess.se> Fri, 09 April 2021 21:39 UTC

Return-Path: <gunnar.hellstrom@ghaccess.se>
X-Original-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46BC43A128F for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 14:39:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=egensajt.se
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bnZeBq1Txv6F for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 14:39:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.egensajt.se (smtp.egensajt.se [193.42.159.246]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DF233A1284 for <avtcore@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 14:39:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.137] (h77-53-37-81.cust.a3fiber.se [77.53.37.81]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: gunnar.hellstrom@ghaccess.se) by smtp.egensajt.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A8A43200A4; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 23:39:12 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=egensajt.se; s=dkim; t=1618004352; bh=mT0aGefK71xEgMLHpeRWyIZ+aqkq9/ZymNYDe7blz2A=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=LUbPer+y3ZmqG95Zbnkia/IeejWX6mmTET7oQWnguIYzENPo0PpxpEAfwr4R4XS22 YGgXVmHYtvrNwULiU9kIyK1whV5hjRtUp0mH1aaORElygQr/XbyGtj5OnThiPPimBB qimQeFwyqKp7/1lz2agY0MSeliCN0um2JsRnbr7U=
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>, "avtcore@ietf.org" <avtcore@ietf.org>
References: <CAL0qLwYOyn6x4Q3od0efGXvFoBjbvpBQsTbB==cUfyi9Ge-vPQ@mail.gmail.com> <ae77f5a3-8a54-556c-97fc-ba394e12546a@ghaccess.se> <CAL0qLwa00gKirVk_xWn1htfkYqkLzmcN43=d8XyZ_WSTBqFAig@mail.gmail.com> <9a73e3cd-3321-55fd-9ebc-3702bc46195e@ghaccess.se>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Gunnar_Hellstr=c3=b6m?= <gunnar.hellstrom@ghaccess.se>
Message-ID: <cc118d45-0a61-ab8b-d623-7fa6d43fbfdf@ghaccess.se>
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2021 23:39:11 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9a73e3cd-3321-55fd-9ebc-3702bc46195e@ghaccess.se>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------40C3F9B7D998656A0657AB5B"
Content-Language: sv
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/8YgjMHG_XV1rkt5bBg8RfMhmJPE>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] AD review of draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-mix
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/avt/>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2021 21:39:29 -0000

Hi Murray,

I have prepared changes from many SHOULD to SHALL in sections 3 and 4, 
and some SHOULD remaining but with explanations.

So, I am ready to submit, just waiting to see if I get any hint on 
suitable xml for the BCP 14 reference.

Thanks,

Gunnar

Den 2021-04-09 kl. 11:47, skrev Gunnar Hellström:
>
> Hi Murray,
>
> A couple of questions before I produce next version:
>
> -On including RFC8174 in a group reference to BCP 14:
>
> I think RFC 8174 is a good clarification for use of "SHOULD" and 
> "should" etc., but I failed to create the proper reference to BCP 14 
> in xml for xml2rfc v.3.
> There are various instructions and examples available, but I cannot 
> make them work in practice.
> Temporarily I copied the way that draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-vvc-08 
> handles it, by just mentioning BCP 14 in text in the boilerplate and 
> not include it in the reference list.
> Do you know a good xml template for the BCP 14 boilerplate?
>
> -On review of SHOULD etc. in sections 3 and 4.
>
> Do you mean that I shall review the use of the RFC 2119 words in 
> sections 3 and 4 and judge if I can use the SHALL/MUST wording, and if 
> I want to keep SHOULD, then insert advice for decision of when to 
> follow the advice.
>
> A possibility is to have SHOULD only in the introduction in 4.2 and 
> then SHALL in the rest of 4.2.x because it is only applicable for 
> implementations selecting to implement the procedures introduced in 4.2.
>
> The current wording in 4.2 is:
>
> "4.2.  Multi-party mixing for multi-party unaware endpoints
>
>    When the mixer has indicated RTT multi-party capability in an SDP
>    negotiation, but the multi-party capability negotiation fails with an
>    endpoint, then the agreed "text/red" or "text/t140" format SHALL be
>    used and the mixer SHOULD compose a best-effort presentation of
>    multi-party real-time text in one stream intended to be presented by
>    an endpoint with no multi-party awareness."
>
> Could it be sufficient to use SHALL in most places in all 4.2.x 
> sections and change the beginning of 4.2 to:
>
> "4.2.  Multi-party mixing for multi-party unaware endpoints
>
>    When the mixer has indicated RTT multi-party capability in an SDP
>    negotiation, but the multi-party capability negotiation fails with an
>    endpoint, then the agreed "text/red" or "text/t140" format SHALL be
>    used and the mixer SHOULD compose a best-effort presentation of
>    multi-party real-time text in one stream intended to be presented by
>    an endpoint with no multi-party awareness,*when that is desired in 
> the actual implementation. The following specifies a procedure for 
> that situation"*
>
> - and then mainly use SHALL in the rest of section 4.2.
>
> ?
>
> Regards
>
> Gunnar
>
> Den 2021-04-08 kl. 23:31, skrev Murray S. Kucherawy:
>> Hi Gunnar,
>>
>> All of this looks good, thank you!
>>
>> If you post a new version with those changes (you may have already; I 
>> haven't checked), I'm comfortable sending the Last Call now.  We can 
>> sort out specific text for the SHOULDs, etc., along the way; the 
>> various reviewers might have suggestions on that topic, and maybe we 
>> can do some of this in parallel.
>>
>> -MSK
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 2:18 PM Gunnar Hellström 
>> <gunnar.hellstrom@ghaccess.se <mailto:gunnar.hellstrom@ghaccess.se>> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hello Murray,
>>
>>     Thanks for the review,
>>
>>     I have answered and acted on all but the SHOULD and RECOMMENDED
>>     etc. in sections 3.4 -4. The response on them will be provided soon.
>>
>>     See answers inline,
>>
>>     Den 2021-04-08 kl. 06:45, skrev Murray S. Kucherawy:
>>>     Hello friends, sorry for the delay getting this review done.
>>>
>>>     I think this is generally in good shape, though I admit my
>>>     understanding of WebRTC isn't as strong as I'd like.  My review
>>>     is therefore mostly about form rather than substance.
>>>
>>>     At any rate, I have the following comments to offer after a
>>>     first review.  Please let me know what you think.
>>>
>>>     --
>>>
>>>     The Abstract is unusually long.  I would suggest reducing it to
>>>     a paragraph or two, or maybe three. My lay opinion is that the
>>>     first two paragraphs could be left for the Introduction section,
>>>     but other approaches are also probably available.
>>     [GH] Moved one paragraph to the intro, deleted another because it
>>     had similar wording in the intro.
>>>
>>>     In many places, references look odd (e.g., "RFC3550[RFC3550]"). 
>>>     This may be an artifact of the way the XML generates the text or
>>>     HTML forms but it might be worth a quick review to get it to
>>>     look right.
>>     [GH]Done
>>>
>>>     In Section 1.1, please use the new BCP 14 boilerplate (combining
>>>     RFC 2119 and RFC 8174).  Also in that section, "as defined in"
>>>     should be "are defined in".
>>     [GH]Done
>>>
>>>     In Section 1.3, "where a calltaker want to take" should use
>>>     "wants" instead of "want".
>>     [GH]Done
>>>
>>>     Is the "SHOULD" in Section 2.2 a piece of interoperability
>>>     advice, or is it advice about presentation?
>>
>>     [GH] Intended to be for interoperability.   I suggest to insert
>>     wording to result in:
>>
>>     SHOULD *in order to maintain interoperability,* if nothing else
>>     is specified for the application, format transmitted text to that
>>     participant....
>>
>>
>>>
>>>     In Sections 2.4, 3.20, and 7, in multiple places, "sdp" should
>>>     be in all caps.
>>     [GH] Done
>>>
>>>     In Section 3.2, remove "being".
>>
>>     [GH] Would it be even more clear to replace "being" with "is" ?
>>
>>        "As soon as a participant is known to participate in a session
>>     with
>>        another entity and is available for text reception, a Unicode BOM
>>        character SHALL be sent to it....."
>>
>>
>>>
>>>     Section 3.4 has a bunch of "SHOULD" and "RECOMMENDED" that are
>>>     not explained.  See comment below about Section 8 for my
>>>     thinking here.  This continues throughout the rest of Section
>>>     3's subsections and much of Section 4.
>>
>>     [GH] For 3.4, the explanation is at the end of the section: "The
>>     intention is to keep the latency low and network load limited
>>     while keeping a good protection against text loss in bursty
>>     packet loss conditions."
>>
>>     But that is a summary explanation. I can insert explanations for
>>     each timing figure in the section.
>>
>>     I stop handling this comment here for now and will return to it
>>     soon with another response..
>>
>>>
>>>     In Section 3.20, "this sections shows" should be "this section
>>>     shows".
>>>
>>     [GH] Done
>>>     In Section 4.2.6, "these facts makes" should be "these facts make".
>>>
>>     [GH] Done
>>
>>
>>>     Section 8 has a bare "SHOULD", by which I mean advice is given
>>>     with no context.  "SHOULD" and "RECOMMENDED" present a choice;
>>>     why might an implementer legitimately decide not to follow this
>>>     advice?  If there's no good reason, should these be
>>>     "SHALL"/"MUST" instead?
>>     [GH] Agreed, in this case SHALL is right.
>>>
>>>     Section 11, second paragraph: "restricted of privacy reasons"
>>>     should probably be "restricted for privacy reasons".
>>     [GH] Done
>>>
>>>     Section 11, third paragraph: "masquerading" should be "masquerade".
>>     [GH] Done
>>>
>>>     Section 11 should also probably refer to Section 3.19.
>>     [GH] A reference added last in 11: "Further security
>>     considerations specific for this application are specified in
>>     section 3.19."
>>>
>>>     Commonly, a "Changes" section (Section 12 here) is marked with a
>>>     note like:
>>>
>>>         [RFC Editor: Please remove this section prior to publication.]
>>>
>>>     (At least I presume that's the intent for this section as well.)
>>
>>     [GH] Done
>>
>>
>>     Thanks,
>>
>>     Gunnar
>>
>>
>>>     -MSK
>>>
>>>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
>>>     avt@ietf.org  <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
>>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt  <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>
>>
>>     -- 
>>     Gunnar Hellström
>>     GHAccess
>>     gunnar.hellstrom@ghaccess.se  <mailto:gunnar.hellstrom@ghaccess.se>
>>
> -- 
> Gunnar Hellström
> GHAccess
> gunnar.hellstrom@ghaccess.se
>
> _______________________________________________
> Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
> avt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt

-- 
Gunnar Hellström
GHAccess
gunnar.hellstrom@ghaccess.se