Re: [Mops] Comments on draft-ietf-mops-streaming-opcons-07

["Ali C. Begen" <[e-mail]>]

Just answering to this latency related comment:


> Another interpretation could be that this document intends to
> primarily serve as a useful reference document for shared
> terminology. In fact, the document does provide a definition for
> "streaming" as well as definitions for several classes of latency.
> Which brings me to my second observation: upon re-reading, the latency
> categories defined by this draft seem somewhat arbitrary.
>
> (See: "3. Latency Considerations")
> <
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-mops-streaming-opcons-07.html#name-latency-considerations
> >
>
> If the intent is for this document to serve as a source for a shared
> vocabulary, I wonder if we could try to ground these categories a bit
> more firmly on specific qualitative differences between the different
> categories. Either by reorienting around use cases or by seeking out
> some specific latency thresholds, e.g. in human computer interaction
> research.
>

I am afraid firming up the boundaries listed here is not possible.
Everybody has an idea on those numbers and that is OK. I don't think we are
arguing this is what everybody should agree to or accept. They are simply
numbers to facilitate the discussion. Having said that, if there are indeed
better numbers that we will all be happy with, let's use them.