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

[Gunnar Hellström <[e-mail]>]

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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt

-- 
Gunnar Hellström
GHAccess
[e-mail]