Re: [AVTCORE] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-08: (with COMMENT)

["Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]>]

Colin

Thank you for your reply and the added explanations on some points: they make sense

Regards

-éric

-----Original Message-----
From: Colin Perkins <[e-mail]>
Date: Monday, 2 November 2020 at 14:38
To: Eric Vyncke <[e-mail]>
Cc: The IESG <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-08: (with COMMENT)

    > On 22 Sep 2020, at 08:43, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > 
    > Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
    > draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-08: 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:
    > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message/
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    > COMMENT:
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    > 
    > Thank you for the work put into this document.
    > 
    > Please find below a couple of non-blocking COMMENT points and nits.
    > 
    > I hope that this helps to improve the document,
    > 
    > Regards,
    > 
    > -éric
    > 
    > == COMMENTS ==
    > 
    > -- Section 3.1 --
    > In "but overlapping reports MAY be sent (and need to be sent in cases" should
    > the "need" be a "MUST” ?

    Overlapping need to be sent to retrospectively correct the loss reports when reordering occurs across the boundary between reports. Aside from a (slightly) incorrect loss rate estimate nothing will break if the overlapping report isn’t sent. As such, I think “MUST” is too strong.

    > -- Section 5 --
    > In "then the sender SHOULD rapidly reduce", "sender" is somehow ambiguous: is
    > it the feedback transmitter or the media source sender ?

    Media sender. Will fix.

    > -- Section 6 --
    > The mandatory use of "*" appears strange to the non-SDP expert (like myself).
    > Why transmitting something that is always identical? What is the value ?

    RFC 4585 requires this syntax to indicate the feedback applies to all payload types used in the session.

    > == NITS ==
    > -- Section 3.1 --
    > As some reader may also wonder like me, why the use of 'L' (at least I am
    > puzzled)? why not giving one word mnemonic to explain the logic behind this
    > choice ?

    Renamed to R (Received)

    > -- Section 7 --
    > Is there a typo in ""a=ecn-capaable-rtp:"” ?

    Fixed.

    > it is probably redundant to again expand ECN.
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > _______________________________________________
    > Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
    > [e-mail]
    > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt



    -- 
    Colin Perkins
    https://csperkins.org/