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

"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Tue, 10 May 2016 16:36 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.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 BCCEB12D537; Tue, 10 May 2016 09:36:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996] autolearn=unavailable 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 3UM88T3PD1hf; Tue, 10 May 2016 09:36:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 CC0BB12D756; Tue, 10 May 2016 09:36:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.10.1.3] ([162.216.46.125]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id u4AGaAXM085055 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 10 May 2016 11:36:11 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [162.216.46.125] claimed to be [10.10.1.3]
From: "Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com>
To: "Colin Perkins" <csp@csperkins.org>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 12:36:09 -0400
Message-ID: <596DD9BA-052E-402F-978D-6F4D6A31ED3D@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <91AD984C-C2FD-4666-ADC0-71A3F0767BDF@csperkins.org>
References: <20160503222644.8260.58780.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4C3D57C2-DDCA-4F2A-BF42-B69E03195B67@csperkins.org> <4D284CCC-C343-42DA-A47F-DD7931A05C6D@nostrum.com> <91AD984C-C2FD-4666-ADC0-71A3F0767BDF@csperkins.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.4r5234)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/k4_gQwcOLZ5gOMRkC6t8_Rko1BI>
Cc: avtcore-chairs@ietf.org, Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers@ietf.org, avt@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Subject: Re: [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
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, 10 May 2016 16:36:28 -0000


On 10 May 2016, at 11:41, Colin Perkins wrote:

  the text.
>>
>> How about restating it to describe the consequences if a parallel 
>> congestion control allows packet loss rates to exceed the threshold?
>
> “To avoid triggering the RTP circuit breaker, any standards-track 
> congestion control algorithms defined for RTP will need to operate 
> within the envelope set by the RTP circuit breaker algorithms”?
>
> Or “…will need to keep packet loss rates within the envelope 
> permitted by the RTP circuit breaker algorithm”?

I am okay with either, with a slight preference towards the first.