Re: GenArt LC review: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-15

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Wed, 18 May 2016 19:37 UTC

Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B89D12D676; Wed, 18 May 2016 12:37:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.326
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.326 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 rOEgM0XZe0qs; Wed, 18 May 2016 12:37:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8ACF12D66F; Wed, 18 May 2016 12:37:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unnumerable.local (mobile-166-171-185-229.mycingular.net [166.171.185.229]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id u4IJbdxS081661 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=OK); Wed, 18 May 2016 14:37:40 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host mobile-166-171-185-229.mycingular.net [166.171.185.229] claimed to be unnumerable.local
Subject: Re: GenArt LC review: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-15
To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos@ietf.org
References: <emc85b28a4-1b14-493c-b114-76873f5f51ca@sydney>
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <573CC47E.60408@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 15:37:34 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <emc85b28a4-1b14-493c-b114-76873f5f51ca@sydney>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/KVOhjIcMwBkGgKVCCUQLVMkzeUc>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 19:37:43 -0000

This works for me (and I apologize for the slow response, I've been 
offline).

RjS

On 5/2/16 10:18 PM, Paul E. Jones wrote:
> Robert,
>
> I am finally getting an opportunity to make updates to the text.
>
> I have responses below...
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Robert Sparks" <rjsparks@nostrum.com>;
> To: "General Area Review Team" <gen-art@ietf.org>;; "ietf@ietf.org"; 
> <ietf@ietf.org>;; draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos@ietf.org
> Sent: 3/31/2016 12:39:13 PM
> Subject: GenArt LC review: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-15
>
>> <snip>
>>
>> These are very small editorial suggestions:
>>
>> The introduction says "seldom makes things worse".
>> Section 5 says "This is one of the cases ... can make things worse."
>> There are no other cases called out, leaving the implementer to guess 
>> at what the other pitfalls are.
>>
>> It would be better to tweak that text to be less vague. I suggest 
>> changing the introduction to say "there is one case this draft 
>> discusses. Other cases may possibly exist, but are expected to be 
>> rare" or similar.
>
> How about this:
>
>   There is one case this draft discusses where such marking does not
>   help, but it seldom makes things worse if packets are marked
>   appropriately.  Other cases where marking does not help may possibly
>   exist, but are expected to be rare.  There are some environments
>   where DSCP markings frequently help, though.  These include:
>
>> The sentence "These code points are solely defaults." in the 
>> introduction is terse, and I suspect it won't translate well. 
>> Consider calling out what the consequences of that statement are more 
>> simply, even if it takes more words.
> How is this?
>
>         This document describes a
>         subset of DSCP code point values drawn from existing RFCs and
>         common usage for use with WebRTC applications.  These code
>         points are intended to be the default values used by a WebRTC
>         application.  While other values could be used, using a
>         non-default value may result in unexpected per-hop behavior.
>         It is RECOMMENDED that WebRTC applications use non-default values
>         only in private networks that are configured to use different
>         values.
>
> Paul
>