RE: Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-rmcat-nada-12

[Sheng Jiang <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Xiaoqing,

Thanks for addressing my comments. I am clear for this review.

Sheng

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Xiaoqing Zhu (xiaoqzhu) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2019 12:22 AM
> To: Sheng Jiang <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-rmcat-nada-12
> 
> Update: the revised draft (link below) has removed the extraneous reference of
> draft-ietf-rmcat-video-traffic-model.
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rmcat-nada-13
> 
> Thanks again, Sheng, for your review on this draft.
> 
> Best,
> Xiaoqing
> 
> On 9/3/19, 8:58 AM, "Xiaoqing Zhu (xiaoqzhu)" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>     Thanks a lot for your review and for catching the glitch in the reference list.
> Will fix that in the next revision.
> 
>     Best,
>     Xiaoqing
> 
> 
>     On 8/31/19, 3:16 AM, "Sheng Jiang via Datatracker" <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> 
>         Reviewer: Sheng Jiang
>         Review result: Has Nits
> 
>         I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's
> ongoing
>         effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These
> comments
>         were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of
> the IETF
>         drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in
> AD
>         reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs
> should treat
>         these comments just like any other last call comments.
> 
>         This experimental document describes an experimental congestion
> control scheme
>         called network-assisted dynamic adaptation (NADA). The sender
> regulates its
>         sending rate based on either implicit or explicit congestion signaling. The
>         document has only described the mechanism and algorithms. This does
> NOT define
>         any massage format, massage exchanging procedure, etc. therefore, it
> is NOT a
>         traditional standard document which is mainly for inter-operation
> purpose.
>         Based on the assumption that such document was also suitable to be
> published as
>         a RFC, I think this document is clear and well-written.
> 
>         There are a small Nit: draft-ietf-rmcat-video-traffic-model (published as
> RFC
>         8593) has been defined as a reference, but not been quoted in the main
> text.
> 
>         Reviewer: Sheng Jiang
>         Review result: Has NITs
> 
> 
> 
> 
>