[AVTCORE] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-08
Michael Scharf via Datatracker <firstname.lastname@example.org> Wed, 09 September 2020 08:22 UTC
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4069F3A10E3; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 01:22:31 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
From: Michael Scharf via Datatracker <email@example.com>
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Reply-To: Michael Scharf <email@example.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2020 01:22:31 -0700
Subject: [AVTCORE] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-08
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/avt>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2020 08:22:32 -0000
Reviewer: Michael Scharf Review result: Ready with Issues This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF discussion list for information. When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC firstname.lastname@example.org if you reply to or forward this review. Major issues ------------- None Minor issues ------------- 1/ Section 5: All RTP congestion control algorithms MUST specify how they respond to the loss of feedback packets. This is a process-related requirement not relevant for interoperability of implementations. In addition, the requirement is not very specific (What would have to be specified?). I am not sure if such a requirement in capital letters is really needed here. This should be handled consistently in all IETF documents. 2/ Section 11: The Security Considerations do not discuss off-path attacks, and it is not clear why this case is missing. Can an off-path attacker trick the sender into sending at either an excessively high or excessively low rate? Nits ---- 1/ Abstract: The protocol extension enables fine-grained feedback on per-packet reception quality. The rationale is provided in Section 1 and (more comprehensively) in Section 8. Yet, I wonder if this objective could also be made a bit more explicit in the abstract, e.g., along the lines of the "fine-grained feedback" wording in the first paragraph of Section 8. 2/ Section 7: Typo in "a=ecn-capaable-rtp:"
- [AVTCORE] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-a… Michael Scharf via Datatracker
- Re: [AVTCORE] Tsvart last call review of draft-ie… Colin Perkins