Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-rmcat-video-traffic-model-06

[Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>]

Ines, thanks for your review. I have entered a No Objection ballot and pointed to your review.

Alissa

> On Jan 24, 2019, at 3:09 PM, Ines Robles <mariainesrobles=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Ines Robles
> Review result: Ready
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-rmcat-video-traffic-model-06
> Reviewer: Ines Robles
> Review Date: 2019-01-24
> IETF LC End Date: 2019-01-28
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary:
> 
> I believe the draft is technically good. This document is well written and
> clear to understand.
> 
> This document describes two reference video traffic models for evaluating RTP
> congestion control algorithms.  The first model statistically characterizes the
> behavior of a live video encoder in response to changing requests on target
> video rate.  The second model is trace-driven, and emulates the output of
> actual encoded video frame sizes from a high-resolution test sequence.  The
> document describes also how both approaches can be combined into a hybrid model.
> 
> Additionally, The stand-alone traffic source module is available as an open
> source implementation, which I think it is very nice. :)
> 
> I did not find issues. I have some minor questions/suggestions.
> 
> Major issues: Not found
> 
> Minor issues: Not found
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> - Page 14: correponding -> corresponding
> 
> - steady state, sometimes appears as steady-state, it would be nice to unify
> these terms.
> 
> Some Questions/suggestions:
> 
> 1- In Figure 1, would it be correct to add an input as a self-loop arrow
> indicating "dummy video frames"? (As previously was an input "raw video frames"
> e.g. in version 4 )
> 
> 2- Would it be correct to add in:
> 
> 2.1- Page 14: "...ongoing, steady-state behavior of a video..." => "...ongoing,
> steady-state behavior (fluctuation around a constant target rate) of a
> video..."? [1]
> 
> 2.2 - Page 8: "...is considered to be in a transient state...." => "...is
> considered to be in a transient state (reaction to abrupt changes in target
> rate)...."? [1]
> 
> [1] Based in
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/slides-101-rmcat-rmcat-video-traffic-model-00
> - Slide 2
> 
> 3- Would it be correct to add in the Figure 3 something like?:
> 
> - R_v > R_v_previous for transient state
> 
> - R_v <= R_v_previous for steady state
> 
> Thanks for this document,
> 
> Ines.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art