Re: [AVTCORE] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-mix-17: (with COMMENT)

Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> Tue, 18 May 2021 14:35 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.h.duke@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 BEB613A14CF; Tue, 18 May 2021 07:35:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=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 (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 YnVtIiNvu06G; Tue, 18 May 2021 07:35:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-x12e.google.com (mail-il1-x12e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12e]) (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 B2E603A14CE; Tue, 18 May 2021 07:35:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-x12e.google.com with SMTP id c16so9358059ilo.1; Tue, 18 May 2021 07:35:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=H++nekpn4zNj6xo5hkdkGPdl/IO4pBRJGkjldHwUgoI=; b=e7yTLkcM2hv6EZmmvl4aKZmktCkknNUbF3OQdafrke0rXHCzVqlOEp06ymJSiR3Rj+ KI5OnyB0J/neOk5xcvdHu5eQWWunv7xrbbe3Z+0YZ5B2S/NR8C9ErkCQvp4prJw19pCN 7ASsoID5Y8XCjGLaAd0PfRJsVxx5H5t5TqjWEv+gkeZVhoZFhV65HkI863Ib4aW92zAC AA0xg4VGa5FIP/dW9dtaAVIc7k+ardj/ykrrp9execPcW1/kk6lLn5yS378FU3Bpmikz 5W2GK2mroHcWEwZOyS+zkn3fxF4ghmSzuOTstjd6o8xtO2cNwDlJzZTZIF38Cpa16fIE YUUQ==
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=H++nekpn4zNj6xo5hkdkGPdl/IO4pBRJGkjldHwUgoI=; b=W+oKnWThalitRsySANzr54UlIobkT61sGXLjxH8rKRZx9kyrLODVCQp2CVjta6va13 Vwx22iYVO8YVaambAWBsTgP6wuqeAXYssZvzHM9Cv7WGjx1v/S1EJuO5Zf6LgPEZ0Vwp +OUpk4XTEHEq8bENCyNIdaay2Q4Q7l8acsBp6oe6mRcsqm4VvzkKh/ECPPow51sH9hEp kzLa7QHK211mUghbroEg3P3if6wcKueXTd/b2ah2ycu5L04deceZ3ngEbPQc4uRthDK5 gHQThlgKFvBBcuBiquqaHsjvinpndNAChYVvIiCDBfw8DyzXLKbD4IAsbL+7gA4K4/hK 6hUQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533qDPfDTvqQTMZyAlbg8ZGR/y0H84hKKNw15uIOr3qgrJRvOdfP O/nyuLMhb0qC5HvWmBShWGjRCX4lnmF1looYCaK6fKfs9s0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxhEBtVbWV6uFqFiS1HCbEH4EPW2VjNIv98FIdlk+p4b7GQ9yul4Sk+cHb17JS7UHTB/W5aaOFx8+mjgyrcya4=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:218f:: with SMTP id j15mr4515962ila.249.1621348542121; Tue, 18 May 2021 07:35:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <162068222166.24279.17528511733896002331@ietfa.amsl.com> <0d972786-1d24-5333-116c-ad17fd07c7e7@ghaccess.se>
In-Reply-To: <0d972786-1d24-5333-116c-ad17fd07c7e7@ghaccess.se>
From: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 07:35:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM4esxRJPmA1QacxScLSc2j2O6HbmomZ72d+Bp3WKSuQ3_6thQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Gunnar_Hellstr=C3=B6m?= <gunnar.hellstrom@ghaccess.se>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, avtcore-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-mix@ietf.org, avt@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e90d0805c29b9f8a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/UeywYnkormujNrJqrnrkjCDikyM>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-mix-17: (with COMMENT)
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: Tue, 18 May 2021 14:35:49 -0000

LGTM

On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 2:29 PM Gunnar Hellström <
gunnar.hellstrom@ghaccess.se> wrote:

> The new version mentioned in a recent mail answering the comments by
> both Martin Duke and Lars Eggert is available.
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-mix/
>
> There is also an HTML version available at:
>
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-mix-18.html
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-mix-18
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
> Regards
> Gunnar
>
> Den 2021-05-10 kl. 23:30, skrev Martin Duke via Datatracker:
> > Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-mix-17: 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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> >
> >
> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-mix/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > - It is not completely clear to me what the actions in the case of
> congestion
> > are. RFC 4103 RECOMMENDS four steps, the first is going from 300 to
> 500ms. So
> > what is the hiearchy here. My guess is:
> >
> > Step 1. Senders MUST go from 300ms to 2 seconds
> > Step 2. Senders SHOULD (further?) limit the number of characters sent
> > Step 3. Senders SHOULD go from 2 seconds to 5 seconds
> > Step 4. Senders SHOULD exclude nodes from the session
> >
> > Is this correct?
> >
> > - Assuming it is correct, I don't understand the motivation behind the
> > congestion considerations in Section 8.
> >
> > The first and third paragraphs make perfect sense to me. But if the total
> > traffic to a receiver, regardless of the number of senders, remains
> limited to
> > 1 packet / 300ms, I don't see why you would change the RFC 4103 guidance
> of
> > 500ms up to 2 seconds. This isn't a DISCUSS because you're welcome to be
> more
> > conservative, but I would like to understand your reasoning.
> >
> > No need to reply to the comments below:
> >
> > - In (3.16) and (4.2.2), you mention various privacy-sensitive fields
> and then
> > say "Integrity SHALL be considered..." I think you mean confidentiality?
> > Integrity means the data hasn't been altered by an attacker.
> >
> > - It would be helpful to clarify in this draft that the CPS limit
> applies only
> > to new, not redundant, text, assuming that is in fact the case.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
> > avt@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
>
> --
> Gunnar Hellström
> GHAccess
> gunnar.hellstrom@ghaccess.se
>
>