[AVTCORE] Alissa Cooper's Yes on draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-16: (with COMMENT)

"Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in> Mon, 13 June 2016 20:49 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
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 A87C212DA1E; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 13:49:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.22.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20160613204915.6791.42147.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 13:49:15 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/wfIfqg0JN-7wLVAEM2H--pPOE-o>
Cc: avtcore-chairs@ietf.org, magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com, draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers@ietf.org, avt@ietf.org
Subject: [AVTCORE] Alissa Cooper's Yes on draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-16: (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: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 20:49:28 -0000

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-16: Yes

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:


Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS.


(1) Did the WG discuss BCP status for this rather than PS?

(2) Section 4.3:

   "If such a reduction in
   sending rate resolves the congestion problem, the sender MAY
   gradually increase the rate at which it sends data after a reasonable
   amount of time has passed, provided it takes care not to cause the
   problem to recur ("reasonable" is intentionally not defined here)."

In later sections you explain that thresholds are not specified because
they are application-dependent. I think that would be useful to note here
too as the reason for not defining "reasonable," assuming that is the