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 >
- GenArt LC review: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-15 Robert Sparks
- Re: GenArt LC review: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos… Paul E. Jones
- Re: GenArt LC review: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos… Jari Arkko
- Re: GenArt LC review: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos… Robert Sparks
- Re: GenArt LC review: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos… Robert Sparks