[Mops] streaming-opcons-07 review
Chris Lemmons <alficles@gmail.com> Fri, 10 December 2021 19:03 UTC
Return-Path: <alficles@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 460F53A00D3 for <mops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Dec 2021 11:03:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 0bIY7hak5N74 for <mops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Dec 2021 11:03:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua1-x929.google.com (mail-ua1-x929.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::929]) (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 74C283A0060 for <mops@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Dec 2021 11:03:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua1-x929.google.com with SMTP id 30so18427681uag.13 for <mops@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Dec 2021 11:03:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=k0V0bfzJy4mNeoPmqB23sPfH/3HXH/hoc/SY16KKqR0=; b=VecDgudNwXfZbug8UYKMdz6ML98EZUsirsXlZ8Kh6c/JdqL4YH2NDqfZBs1Qiuvvtq MAaCW8vyoR4LlzW+qUmzhjTRlrg/rzN/ZLbXzA1RZL35FY9ZyHqzpk5iikva/Y9UU6Px yVU4AOiIT7lwUH1WVaevckS0Ve0Fk9Ar6oj2L5pQDhzSkyuMDc2K/TepNmYHyPwoiGfc mdLEeUXZwpIoMmXNjXtEsQEvSHQyX64KVHwaWgzWGgF9Ht3+g27YPGM9ssNjKBYlNHnZ RYHpiiKAPEY0I9qlrBQ8uhSFu/MwU19jhqSVR0YNxz0e+xqHhMW0dJf4s/0v5/KsEcXb I7Sw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=k0V0bfzJy4mNeoPmqB23sPfH/3HXH/hoc/SY16KKqR0=; b=PYlYpn/xwn4sUfRck5HPOm+BVvrDn6grB86jUdAffzA1xwasm2UAH3rNF5zIZ+MP9j h2GicNSetKu9QOzeKfBFhHlhG8fD1kQFYCY+vkvbPFMlAIxCaQ4tNXs78u0qZFLWm/lS nAu+SQOLZSrovVTvOkFVYgG0qSLhpVsezvu25Ey7HSvuFoNVm6TX3UEG8f+wiXLJXNss EbHEtn2r3vXBBK+P/fyGYicA7azifgc5clMfkRNuBVY1WBGlHOJSJiUY0VQFNnz7yV2H mKizove4uncesjzOA0YCf1SoFFVYFPD8E0XwZLw+CQ+xdoWgp9Io99FZuuLcNztvM9Hr tgcw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532R30d5m/BqiziZeSpk4VGTU4IWC0y1D72B7xFECcHzGo+ZDd2X 6fzxsfyLj9MOxQs6oD3TE0wLRcrh/4JyFxTSajNk/sDFbfE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxIiUO7lHzuonPMMArzPDM8djDv4SB43+ANwwq3Wt0CECbqtKC0vO84o31hHiG7Dni29tdWpPjAY5f6Ab7/UxE=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:3f16:: with SMTP id k22mr18131248vsv.79.1639162998589; Fri, 10 Dec 2021 11:03:18 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Chris Lemmons <alficles@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2021 12:02:57 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJEGKNtw0PpyuhgKodsB+hB=riW7HtLsf6sXOWowORnT9hyweQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: mops@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mops/WDWMgyhYbIlBgq8RxrwZcyS44MI>
Subject: [Mops] streaming-opcons-07 review
X-BeenThere: mops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Media OPerationS <mops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mops>, <mailto:mops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mops/>
List-Post: <mailto:mops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mops>, <mailto:mops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2021 19:03:23 -0000
Nits and observations: §2.2 "handwidth" should be "bandwidth". §2.6 "faiis" should be "fails". §2.6 ISP acronym is used without expanding the first use for those unfamiliar with it. §2.7 IXP and VPN acronyms used without definition as well. For the acronyms, ISP and VPN might be well known enough to avoid spelling out, but IXP probably needs spelling out the first time. I usually err on the side of spelling them out, though, to avoid ambiguity. §4.5.2 Does "goodput" need explanation or do we think readers will be familiar with the term? Could a reference help here? §4.6.2 "Many assumes" should be "Many assume" or "Many people assume". §5 Most of the document uses "Adaptive BitRate", but here we use "Adaptive Bitrate". We should be consistent with capitalization. §5.2 "we have trusted the TCP protocol" reads oddly because the P already stands for protocol. Perhaps just "we have trusted TCP"? Also in the last paragraph with "Although TCP protocol behavior". §5.3 "transport protocol behaviors that responds" should be "transport protocol behaviors that respond". §5.3 "something completely different" needs full stop. §7.3 Traffic Control CDN has graduated Apache incubation. The new address is https://trafficcontrol.apache.org/ . §7.6.* Should most of these links be references? Or are just links ok? I know with any kind of linking there's a risk of staleness, but these are probably useful enough to provide, I'm just not sure exactly what the right formatting should be. §9 It's odd to say basically nothing in the "Security Issues" section. We've got multiple sections (including all of section 6) that touch on security and privacy implications of various kinds of behaviours in the streaming media space. Maybe a sentence or two here that points to the rest of the doc while acknowledging that since we're not defining a new protocol, we're not creating new problems? Or maybe it's fine as is. It just feels strange to me. Procedural question: We have references to drafts in the document. Does its publication need to be held until those references can be resolved? Relatedly, 7234 is very likely to be obsoleted by draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-19 (which is in the RFC Editors queue) soon. Should we update the reference in §2.4 assuming this document is published after that? And, of course, an apology for being so very late to review this. It's a substantial document and it has a _lot_ of really valuable guidance. Perhaps most valuable of all are the very well-collected references that point the reader to a lot of other documents, organizations, and initiatives. If we hammer out the last few details, I support this draft.
- [Mops] streaming-opcons-07 review Chris Lemmons
- Re: [Mops] streaming-opcons-07 review Ali C. Begen