Re: [AVTCORE] AD review of draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-07

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Wed, 02 September 2020 23:16 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
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 D0BC13A0123; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 16:16:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 iEoNM-ytjYrV; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 16:16:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-f43.google.com (mail-io1-f43.google.com [209.85.166.43]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB9C23A011B; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 16:16:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-f43.google.com with SMTP id g14so769191iom.0; Wed, 02 Sep 2020 16:16:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=5ArSA9LOePiB3YIj4Qa+1/6sOY+I36etXOvfElXM1q8=; b=YlBWBrhYoz7P5MMup8+fnNya7RL5nL54nB0uRwKJh/wB19LLvjmLkMUIE62n3qFyej qToKfvIvOZZMnzOql5WZM1JkYG7dbsCJJaPfsLyJtn1wObp+JyfahIZh8WudfXhYpNNO cRozYZfwhNEg4RrsueVJJd4QkSdpAhx4XrnSbckFH3UJLTMU6IBfHWT+HxZDRP6JvK7B +xJc7tBmR/eqPyWUj99jsOCqGimuJL8XMrE0tlgn3jkP3siOCBeV46c5bxXAA4K7ObZS 76oB+yhOBzQkKJlCtliIwGNj2v0uVSx2VFUF7LreJfm48+5/AEmO4v2gxWv6eCmr5dAJ Z/UA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5309iWK0fajNn/N1sjE2R7xS3TNnGVRFT1OspiWfMvWjwVwXJz9i /LqV+jRjy8K9Jod9dwC40vNY0zbICNCJUvGp9oxmmtc+JG8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw2TShAJg1cewKKXi3yGckor7B5MbmTF5/Ob3Q5ldZG5ImZPsxhY1fDWvx4RubdA4v/Sl+5P/LHEAe8wVIHh8g=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:820b:: with SMTP id o11mr384782jag.136.1599088566843; Wed, 02 Sep 2020 16:16:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALaySJKbFKzBU7AJDqZSTmBCJKh6QJU8pHi38KumuJ878TPY0Q@mail.gmail.com> <E21CF7E6-AA00-46BB-BFDF-6BED39661FA6@csperkins.org>
In-Reply-To: <E21CF7E6-AA00-46BB-BFDF-6BED39661FA6@csperkins.org>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 19:15:56 -0400
Message-ID: <CALaySJLzsyBDWyiOzHbZHc-0c6R=NbRx5h_R1dRiaaqE+Ci17g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
Cc: avt@ietf.org, draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message.all@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fdbe7305ae5cd12c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/Ou2MdXaypyTdY_Z4ho2F0WuJV20>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] AD review of draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-07
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: Wed, 02 Sep 2020 23:16:13 -0000

Thanks, Colin, for addressing my pickiness.  😁

Barry

On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 6:10 PM Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> wrote:

> > On 23 Jul 2020, at 22:38, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Thanks for the work on this clear, easy-to-read document, and I'm
>
> > sorry it took me a while to get through the workload to review it.
>
> > Here's my AD review, and I'll set the state to "revised I-D needed"
>
> > and start last call after -08 is posted.
>
> >
>
> > Everything here is minor; please let me know if you disagree with
>
> > anything below.
>
> >
>
> > — Section 1 —
>
> > Please include reference citations for RTP and RTCP.
>
>
>
> Done.
>
>
>
> >   As a direct result,
>
> >   the different congestion control (i.e., rate adaptation) designs are
>
> >   not interoperable.
>
> >
>
> > Is “i.e.,” the right term here, or do you mean “such as”?  I would
>
> > also move the parenthetical one word later, rather than having it
>
> > split the phrase “congestion control designs”.
>
>
>
> I meant “i.e.”, but it’s probably clearer to just remove the parenthetical.
>
>
>
> > — Section 2 —
>
> > Please use the current BCP 10 boilerplate, found in RFC 8174, and add
>
> > a normative reference to that RFC.
>
>
>
> Done.
>
>
>
> > — Section 3 —
>
> >
>
> >   o  RTP sequence number: The receiver of an RTP flow needs to feedback
>
> >      the sequence numbers of the received RTP packets to the sender
>
> >
>
> > Nit: “feed back”, as a verb, should be two words.  Or perhaps “needs
>
> > to feed the sequence numbers … back to the sender”.  (Check other uses
>
> > of “feedback” as a verb also.)
>
>
>
> Fixed.
>
>
>
> > — Section 3.1 —
>
> >
>
> >   The contents of each 16-bit packet metric block comprises the L, ECN,
>
> >   and ATO fields are as follows:
>
> >
>
> > Nit: It looks like “are” is an extra word here, yes?
>
>
>
> Fixed.
>
>
>
> >      1 represent the
>
> >      packet was received and the subsequent bits in the block need to
>
> >      be parsed.
>
> >
>
> > Nit: “1 represents that the”
>
>
>
> Fixed.
>
>
>
> > — Section 5 —
>
> >
>
> >   However, if
>
> >   multiple consecutive congestion control feedback packets are lost,
>
> >   the sender SHOULD rapidly reduce its sending rate towards zero, as
>
> >   this likely indicates a path failure.
>
> >
>
> > Doesn’t “reduce” already mean “towards zero”?  Is something further
>
> > meant by saying “towards zero” that should be made clearer (I suspect
>
> > so)?
>
>
>
> Nothing further meant. Fixed.
>
>
>
> > — Section 6 —
>
> >
>
> >   When used with "ccfb" feedback, the wildcard payload type ("*") MUST
>
> >   be used.
>
> >
>
> > This doesn’t read well as written, and sorta doesn’t make much sense.
>
> > I think you just want to say this:
>
> >
>
> > NEW
>
> >   The payload type used with “ccfb” feedback MUST be the wildcard type
> (“*”).
>
> > END
>
>
>
> Agree, fixed.
>
>
>
> > — Section 8 —
>
> >
>
> >   An efficient congestion control algorithm requires more fine grained
>
> >   information on per packet reception quality
>
> >
>
> > Nit: hyphenate “fine-grained” and “per-packet”.  Also hyphenate the
>
> > former in the following sentence.
>
>
>
> Fixed.
>
>
>
> >      This is the opposite of the sender based congestion
>
> >      control approach suggested in this memo, so TMMBR cannot be used
>
> >      to convey the information needed for a sender based congestion
>
> >      control.
>
> >
>
> > Nit: hyphenate “sender-based” in both places, and also at the end of
>
> > the section.
>
>
>
> Fixed.
>
>
>
> > — Section 11 —
>
> >
>
> >   at a greater rate than the path can support, thereby congesting the
>
> >   path.
>
> >
>
> > Is “congesting” really used as a verb generally?  Better as “thereby
>
> > causing congestion on the path.”
>
>
>
>
>
> I use “congesting” in that way, but perhaps English as used in Scotland is
> different to more international uses :) Your suggestion is also fine.
>
>
>
> I’ll submit -08 with these fixes.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Colin
>
>
>
>