Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-rmcat-sbd-10

David <davidh@simula.no> Fri, 30 March 2018 09:19 UTC

References: <151997984435.15751.9973313685882732550@ietfa.amsl.com>
User-agent: mu4e 0.9.18; emacs 24.5.1
From: David <davidh@simula.no>
To: Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com>
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-rmcat-sbd@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <151997984435.15751.9973313685882732550@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 11:19:48 +0200
Message-ID: <87lge9hqdn.fsf@simula.no>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/uu4FpAkJ3ZbhKz17j0QYGjXY2N0>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-rmcat-sbd-10
Precedence: list

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] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-r… Dan Romascanu
Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ie… David
Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ie… Alissa Cooper