[Dart] Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp-07

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Tue, 14 October 2014 15:50 UTC

Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: dart@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dart@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0B451A8934; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 08:50:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.354
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.354 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 kgU_LbEIl75I; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 08:50:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven.nostrum.com [69.55.229.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB6AD1A8791; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 08:50:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unnumerable.local ([173.64.248.98]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.9/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s9EFoS37042924 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK); Tue, 14 Oct 2014 10:50:31 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [173.64.248.98] claimed to be unnumerable.local
Message-ID: <543D463F.4080403@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 10:50:23 -0500
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp.all@tools.ietf.org, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, dart@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dart/y1xeLHXieN1tVEPVqV0gD3R26uI
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 09:05:36 -0700
Subject: [Dart] Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp-07
X-BeenThere: dart@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "\"DiffServ Applied to RTP Transports discussion list\"" <dart.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dart>, <mailto:dart-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dart/>
List-Post: <mailto:dart@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dart-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dart>, <mailto:dart-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 15:50:36 -0000

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>;.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp-07
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 14-Oct-2014
IETF LC End Date: 14-Oct-2014
IESG Telechat date: not yet scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Ready with nits

These are very small nits to consider. Please feel free to leave the 
existing text alone if these suggestions don't help.

At the end of page 13, the sentence that starts "Transport protocol 
support for multiple"... is very long and hard to parse. I suspect it 
will be hard to translate. The action of changing the existing protocols 
is implied rather than explicit in the current wording. "current 
designs" is vague. I suggest this as a starting point: "Adding support 
for multiple QoS-based traffic classes within a single network 5-tuple 
to a transport protocol adds significant complexity compared to the 
current protocol definitions. For congestion-controlled transport 
protocols, network congestion information for each QoS-based traffic 
class would have to be disambiguated to allow congestion control to be 
managed separately for each such traffic class." Hopefully it can be 
made even simpler.

In the first paragraph of 5.2, would "Such reordering may lead to 
unneeded retransmission, and spurious emission of retransmission control 
signals (such as NACK) in reliable delivery protocols (see Section 5.1)" 
work?