IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> Tue, 03 May 2016 02:18 UTC

Return-Path: <paulej@packetizer.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 15FF812D144; Mon, 2 May 2016 19:18:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.998 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_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=packetizer.com
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 z30P0oi0RA7k; Mon, 2 May 2016 19:18:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dublin.packetizer.com (dublin.packetizer.com [75.101.130.125]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 979A012D0C9; Mon, 2 May 2016 19:18:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.20] (cpe-098-122-181-215.nc.res.rr.com [98.122.181.215] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by dublin.packetizer.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id u432IACC007346 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 2 May 2016 22:18:11 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=packetizer.com; s=dublin; t=1462241891; bh=btUwXGzy5c12qqusxdAApwj85oGnwHYzjCiEZTI0crE=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Reply-To; b=WovDspP73b1JO82IU72tEfZZqyXMKhMaGjw6OCL6D2A3nLQdLCi/69CPkLAH1um0C zdBWPj+4AhV30RSz/j+JjgyZ8dx4pLEafLKcdq7Cjem6cEA+42geOSm2NghqYnfTrd SrhuJdGDohMzwfhyz2Cywqvr8bM6x5wxj/Wntwtk=
From: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos@ietf.org
Subject: Re: GenArt LC review: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-15
Date: Tue, 03 May 2016 02:18:18 +0000
Message-Id: <emc85b28a4-1b14-493c-b114-76873f5f51ca@sydney>
In-Reply-To: <56FD52B1.1030104@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: eM_Client/6.0.24928.0
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (dublin.packetizer.com [10.137.60.122]); Mon, 02 May 2016 22:18:11 -0400 (EDT)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/mQ2loikAYrgAE4U10MQKlRN-X2E>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
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: Tue, 03 May 2016 02:18:17 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email