Re: [Gen-art] [rmcat] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-rmcat-nada-11
Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Wed, 04 September 2019 20:33 UTC
Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A865C12018B; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 13:33:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cooperw.in header.b=QxQgFRF/; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=HxvmAHty
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 FxK8yo9ux3dI; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 13:33:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B46D4120E1A; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 13:33:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 055B921FB6; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 16:33:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 04 Sep 2019 16:33:08 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm1; bh=Q mHONVjVlKmNVN0pUYmCsDnADH/cfyP0Jg06v/yW850=; b=QxQgFRF/BWtnSZZxn 5tgAtcAc0qj+s0p/VikcRToB7/ZGAOWofRCoBrF36GpWKRMTeeAj3tEaIjaC4pWV dcR9VsUxpTzKPmbFS/VJIUY9HG/DzMHUhSibF6ywuGGP04ZYbSIflxLtD5o938n/ MJzERKR6p8dOC0OdzHUdJb+bOzkLb5UQ/j/lbmMwSI/IhqbdiECdXY7ipg+6ZiKP Abe207utNRwY06LPBAgRvU2LCXQUaUJAjhqP5MX24esmlyaemyd9PmZCC/yy8iMp CzgSYkbV6m1i91XNBUPQsOEP7pIrujRxI7l7iPtwpXUNK29X0Ruo4nrV2II0jIU9 WOWrQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=QmHONVjVlKmNVN0pUYmCsDnADH/cfyP0Jg06v/yW8 50=; b=HxvmAHtyITWlMOqoI2AlHl4DZbrCL5huHx19Ur82/R1N4r1IQxlfJX+yr UptCS5hv6dFR5Z/txPipiQxSIjgq8nhhn9NGsr6fE3wPleMEz3+EsKo0HfplRjJY AaUx26h2IwZbbhFijBRpLqi6mpn5OpKbryrD3sPPeNhRDlu7YxurivaLl7gsfwsM 99HDGh0hryvq0O4diYE0iULc6kfpluDwvQdRo1ft7JHtIZSN6S/5hFyN8ak1yBzl +ibO/dYD+yNlmpLWnfn0h+8btUEpcoGNBTGNCFPaBFsjwHzn+lCKHRDfjgrHa8ey HPbuZOCJesbZTHOKkXx/SB/IzRJKw==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:gx9wXdiHlQwFQNLCUT5KlzaT95iPa1ODs8aJEFUdLFwBf1nVjdlCsw>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduvddrudejhedgudegkecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpegtggfuhfgjfffgkfhfvffosehtqhhmtdhhtdejnecuhfhrohhmpeetlhhi shhsrgcuvehoohhpvghruceorghlihhsshgrsegtohhophgvrhifrdhinheqnecuffhomh grihhnpehivghtfhdrohhrghenucfkphepudejfedrfeekrdduudejrdejgeenucfrrghr rghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomheprghlihhsshgrsegtohhophgvrhifrdhinhenucevlhhush htvghrufhiiigvpedt
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:gx9wXWTc-9-IZ8Z9VYCZNuykg4xPo4Kb9rm5QAX_z7zZsizKYHJHdw> <xmx:gx9wXYGbGUyFem-hLAg0KXEHoD3viXrIiMzyaP_RrQ-9Dg3HQIvREg> <xmx:gx9wXWkliLDJGd8_Qj-3oH8NL_kACrvpLYokSGStZvAYMQSrSaT-Pg> <xmx:gx9wXVxcL9dVJg2bY7wK2d460NBG611fsfOWuDtmi2xPnd-lxN51oA>
Received: from rtp-alcoop-nitro2.cisco.com (unknown [173.38.117.74]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 2CE74D60067; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 16:33:07 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <fc14feea-0582-3030-d796-6eef40c33951@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2019 16:33:06 -0400
Cc: "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-rmcat-nada.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rmcat-nada.all@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D8BEE8BA-5992-476C-9DFE-9C07556403DE@cooperw.in>
References: <156504341913.1947.3933210567772943756@ietfa.amsl.com> <34AB0964-230B-40F2-A865-08F568E72A85@cisco.com> <375e0240-1983-53e6-8e6f-d4d71c6e13c3@joelhalpern.com> <8253AE48-7084-4178-A1B1-94738215463F@cisco.com> <fc14feea-0582-3030-d796-6eef40c33951@joelhalpern.com>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, "Xiaoqing Zhu (xiaoqzhu)" <xiaoqzhu@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/UJWNoohZWl-SaDIRjP4L_hyEGS4>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [rmcat] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-rmcat-nada-11
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2019 20:33:18 -0000
Joel, thank you for your review. Xiaoqing, thanks for updating the document. I entered a Yes ballot. Best, Alissa > On Aug 25, 2019, at 9:34 AM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote: > > Thank you Xiaoqing. The revised documents looks good to me. > Yours, > Joel > > On 8/25/2019 12:33 AM, Xiaoqing Zhu (xiaoqzhu) wrote: >> Hi Joel, >> Just wanted to update that we've submitted the revised draft (-12) where changes as stated below for addressing your comments. >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rmcat-nada-12 >> Thanks again for reviewing this draft and helping to improve it. >> Best, >> Xiaoqing >> On 8/13/19, 10:31 AM, "rmcat on behalf of Joel M. Halpern" <rmcat-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote: >> Thank you. Those changes will address my concerns very effectively. >> Yours, >> Joel >> On 8/13/2019 11:26 AM, Xiaoqing Zhu (xiaoqzhu) wrote: >> > Dear Joel, >> > >> > Many thanks for your review of this draft. Please find our responses as below, tagged [Authors]. >> > >> > Best, >> > Xiaoqing (on behalf of all authors) >> > >> > On 8/5/19, 5:17 PM, "Joel Halpern via Datatracker" <noreply@ietf.org> wrote: >> > >> > Reviewer: Joel Halpern >> > Review result: Almost 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-nada-11 >> > Reviewer: Joel Halpern >> > Review Date: 2019-08-05 >> > IETF LC End Date: 2019-08-12 >> > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat >> > >> > Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as an Experimental RFC >> > >> > Major issues: >> > It is unclear reading this RFC how the observation information is to be >> > communicated from the receiver to the sender. At first I thought it was to >> > use the RTP Receiver report. But there is no description of how to map the >> > fields to that report. Then section 5.3 describes requirements for a >> > reporting mechanism, but does not seem to actually define one. Thus, I am >> > left unclear how independent interoperable implementations of this draft can >> > be created. >> > >> > [Authors] Thanks for raising this point. The feedback format is a topic covered >> > by another currently pending draft (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-04), >> > which indeed aims at ensuring interoperability of independent implementations of >> > RMCAT congestion control solutions. Therefore, in this draft we only specified what type >> > of information is needed (e.g., receiving rate) and the unit and bit budget it is expressed >> > in (e.g., in bps in 32 bits) in the feedback from the receiver. We also pointed out in Sec. 6.4 >> > that an alternative way to implement this draft would be to leverage feedback messages >> > that contain per-packet information (e.g., delay and loss info) and to move all the calculations >> > from the receiver to the sender. >> > >> > [Author] Given the above considerations, we refrained from specifying a specific feedback >> > format. However, we should perhaps add a reference pointing to the cc-feedback-message draft. >> > Will do that in the next revision. >> > >> > Minor issues: >> > The document has 7 front page authors. The shepherd writeup does not >> > comment on this. The shepherd writeup seems quite sparse. II would have >> > expected some reference to the experimental behavior described in the draft. >> > >> > [Authors] Thanks for raising the concern about long list of front page authors. We got some >> > additional guidance from the AD and will make some adjustments accordingly. >> > >> > [Authors] As for comments on the experimental behavior: we have presented in recent IETF meetings >> > on several sets of real-world evaluations of one implementation of NADA. But, admittedly, the draft >> > is lagging behind in not yet adding pointers to those results. Your suggestion is a great one and we'll add >> > corresponding pointer (see links below) and related discussions in the next version. >> > >> > * https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials/slides-103-rmcat-nada-implementation-in-mozilla-browser-00 >> > * https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/105/materials/slides-105-rmcat-nada-update-02.pdf >> > >> > >> > This comment is just to confirm that I am reading the draft correctly. It >> > looks like when the observed delay cross the delay boundary, the reporting >> > system reports using a smaller delay than actually approved (slightly more >> > than 1/9th of observed delay when delay is 3*QTH). I presume this is >> > intentional, and that the various analysis pointed to evaluate the risks of >> > such false reporting? >> > >> > [Authors] Yes, your understanding is correct. The main motivation for this "delay warping" >> > In the presence of persistently high queuing delay *and* presence of loss is to help the flow to >> > sustain a more fair rate when competing against aggressive loss-based flows. Will follow your >> > advice and add some discussions on the potential risks involved in performing this "delay warping". >> > >> > Is it intentional in section 4.3 in the pseudo-code that the rate clipping >> > (to keep the rate between RMIN and RMAX) is only applied to the gradual >> > rate change, not to the accelerated rate change? The later code says that >> > the clipping is always applied, which is what I would expect. >> > >> > [Authors] Thanks to the catch. The clipping is always applied. Will fix the text accordingly. >> > >> > Nits/editorial comments: >> > >> > >> > [Authors] Thanks again for your above comments. Our next round of revision (version -12) will incorporate >> > changes as mentioned in our above response. >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
- [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-r… Joel Halpern via Datatracker
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ie… Xiaoqing Zhu (xiaoqzhu)
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ie… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Gen-art] [rmcat] Genart last call review of … Xiaoqing Zhu (xiaoqzhu)
- Re: [Gen-art] [rmcat] Genart last call review of … Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Gen-art] [rmcat] Genart last call review of … Alissa Cooper