Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-rmcat-sbd-10
Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Wed, 04 April 2018 19:46 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 77124126DCA; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 12:46:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 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] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cooperw.in header.b=fiGT83NM; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=TJb3DrvN
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 HwU9JsaueAvl; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 12:46:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FB67126E64; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 12:46:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A797121EA9; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 15:46:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 04 Apr 2018 15:46:19 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=uRgjORg91X4mJDNm8q5shPji7+uYw zegoCAamf6IDcw=; b=fiGT83NMz41AImGFW5DZ1LROIdvs2Pxy1XENH6OaNJWmv /BVuSuYJZ+g1HAd5AU9Bwewyl9lsxqHT1rwE8r3/RRO7WcZlSsdJ2DxR46iheok4 82+J+AS+y9ofHlAJHG5bfi8sWZGUNB2VU5CFmq1UzujycASw985cjLkGQDKL99P7 ryjnOMBFIWauBEZeqR3ILrAj2CzbdGH/imX88KFpyEJNXjJWpDqCyyka8fyxzUZi ZizUxHy9qPqWrLxcMQ7jZ/MhQuOUOKAeO6Mw51Guc9c3A9QrNs/a7S6JsnQWb8kj BKuO/RyENyp/4bgGMwC7kBTWatX/A+Y38tjUSyAoQ==
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-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=uRgjOR g91X4mJDNm8q5shPji7+uYwzegoCAamf6IDcw=; b=TJb3DrvNPjuCwL6MPXd/jo yWtmBFLptmG+qtslIDhAMUDv0nQMdneb0/3uD58FTFFED9uzembMtOphCfveCA1/ 2aPNaTQAaW698ItB7yCfGwZlG/7VUHBP8MEBgQxaNhoEC6lGqlqP3c5Kn9JJoidc Fxe93soUTGlsYgOY4qQIrmugvPFjdYfqqzygBCAjMcrKU5ugVGWuTDkdZI/EerAa ocjSa+BZoPqFzaJXgk4/OQwWpG/2JV/xcQd6xfiLVKJoZrMw5Xo+icj69ezqu+qU gOVZTReRee/s7bFqS3BWbY5ejwVr9S+hDS8WmHA4wBAG+aU2UPio8zP41YBwNOQA ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:iyvFWkOLuCTfqOGK1BQNsa2ChFCbq3O0vPYIszEFkKMd8Fel05uSeQ>
Received: from rtp-alcoop-nitro3.cisco.com (unknown [173.38.117.78]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 3E51710253; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 15:46:19 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <87lge9hqdn.fsf@simula.no>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2018 15:46:18 -0400
Cc: Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com>, gen-art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-rmcat-sbd@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <62DB7AA2-B79B-4A77-B5EF-47E95D0A4CAA@cooperw.in>
References: <151997984435.15751.9973313685882732550@ietfa.amsl.com> <87lge9hqdn.fsf@simula.no>
To: David <davidh@simula.no>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/tCQqXP0rHmk8d0AQVnsspE0m9mQ>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-rmcat-sbd-10
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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 Apr 2018 19:46:22 -0000
Dan, thanks for your review. David, thanks for your response. I’ve entered a No Objection ballot. Alissa > On Mar 30, 2018, at 5:19 AM, David <davidh@simula.no> wrote: > > Hi Dan, > > Thank you for reviewing this. We have just submitted an update that > addresses the major and minor issue you commented on. Thanks! > > Kind regards, > > David > > > On Fri, Mar 02 2018 at 09:37, Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Reviewer: Dan Romascanu >> 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-sbd-10 >> Reviewer: Dan Romascanu >> Review Date: 2018-03-01 >> IETF LC End Date: 2018-03-16 >> IESG Telechat date: 2018-04-05 >> >> Summary: >> >> Almost Ready >> >> This is an interesting and well-written document. The method described in the >> document have a proposed status of Experimental that seems appropriate, and I >> liked the fact that the expected feedback from the experiments is mentioned in >> Section 6. I believe that the document is almost ready for publication from the >> Gen-ART perspective, but lacks reference and relation to existing work in the >> IETF related to the definitions and measurement methods for metrics like packet >> loss or one-way delay. Adding this information would make clear what is >> currently missing and why this work is needed. >> >> Major issues: >> >> 1. The document does not refer or relate to existing work in the IETF. Metrics >> like packet loss or one-way-delay have been defined in IETF WGs like IPPM and >> dealt with in real-time applications context by XRBLOCK. For example Packet >> Loss is defined by RFC 2680, OWD by RFC 7679. Are these applicable? What is >> missing and why new work is necessary? I assume that there are good answers to >> these questions, but these are not included in the document. >> >> Minor issues: >> >> 1. It would be useful to explain what the authors mean in this document by >> 'signal' as the usage of the term is different than in other context. For >> example in section 1.2, or more specifically in section 1.2.1 where a sentence >> like 'Packet loss is often a relatively rare signal.' is hard to understand >> without such context explanation. >> >> Nits/editorial comments: >> >> 1. Several acronyms are not expanded at first occurrence - for example, but not >> limited to: RTP, ECN, etc. > > > -- > David Hayes > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art