[AVTCORE] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-15: (with COMMENT)

"Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Tue, 03 May 2016 22:26 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: avt@ietf.org
Delivered-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 086D812D9C8; Tue, 3 May 2016 15:26:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.19.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20160503222644.8260.58780.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 03 May 2016 15:26:44 -0700
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/Sf3qofpfnzgVqusRyn6Y6xPUZYg>
Cc: avtcore-chairs@ietf.org, magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com, draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers@ietf.org, avt@ietf.org
Subject: [AVTCORE] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-15: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Tue, 03 May 2016 22:26:45 -0000

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-15: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


I just have a nit and a random query...

- nit: The abstract says "It is expected that future
standards-track congestion control algorithms for RTP will
operate within the envelope defined by this memo." That
seems both unwise and unlikely to work to me. Unwise in
that you're trying to control the future which seems like
it'll just generate heat and not light, and unlikely to
work since it's not clear to me that any CC scheme can
take into account circuit breaker constants configured on
a node that may not be known anywhere else. I'd say better
would be to say that we hope that future CC algorithms
will be consistent with this and leave it at that.
However, if that sentence is the product of a bunch of
haggling then it's probably better to leave it as-is and
I'll just hold my nose a bit;-) (Same sentence is in the
intro - same comment.)

- query: Assuming people have implemented some or all of
this, I wondered if it'd be a good idea to document some
of the ways in which those implementations went wrong,
i.e. bugs already fixed, especially if there were any
that'd result in the circuit not being broken when it
ought be. But that's probably too late or better done in
some other document for now, so feel free to ignore me.