Re: [Mops] Comments on draft-ietf-mops-streaming-opscons-08

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Sanjay,

On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 6:03 PM Mishra, Sanjay <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Opscon authors - I have submitted a shepherd write up for the document
> earlier today. I have two follow up questions.
>
> 1. I am reconfirming that there are no IPR disclosures that should be made
> but have not been made. But, please confirm once again.
>
> 2. I have some minor knits in the document. See below:
>

Please take a look at
https://github.com/ietf-wg-mops/draft-ietf-mops-streaming-opcons/pull/96,
and let me know what you think.

I made most of these changes as suggested, and rephrased two or three. My
thoughts follow.

Best,

Spencer

Comments:
>
> Pg 6: remove "." between TCP and which.
> Much of the focus of this document is on reliable media using HTTP
> over TCP. which is widely used..."
>
> Awkward transition between comma and start of another example.
>
> "wide range of operating systems, is also used in a
> wide variety of other applications, has been demonstrated to provide
> acceptable performance over the open Internet, includes state of the
> art standardized security mechanisms, and can make use of already deployed
> caching infrastructure"
>

I split this into a list of bullets. I don't know how anyone could have
parsed the sentence on first reading :-)


> Consider rephrasing the start of the sentence, such as "This document also
> briefly discusses..." (or the document also briefly touches on...)
> "Some mentions of unreliable media delivery using RTP and other UDPbased
> protocols appear in..."
>
> it's -> it is (other places in the document)
>
> sec 3.4 -> re-use of "popular" twice in a sentence
> "One popular example is when popular streaming content..."
> May be re-state -> "one relevant example is when popular streaming
> content..."
>
> sec 3.5 ->  "users consume more video and videos at
> higher bitrates" reword?
> "users consume more videos and at a higher bit rate"?
>
> sec 3.6 -> '"throttle" these transfers, to mitigate the load..." Comma not
> needed
>
> sec 4.2 -> Reference to draft-pantos-hls-rfc8216bis will need update as
> this is not an RFC yet
>

The RFC Editor will verify all of the references just before publication,
and makes sure they all exist, etc. They'll make that change automatically,
so I didn't do anything here.


> "While an LL-HLS client retrieves each chunk with a separate HTTP GET
> request, an LL-DASH client ..." replace "an" -> "a"
>

I wouldn't have caught this ^^^ in a million years.


> sec 5.4 -> "Ads" -> prior to use of acronym suggest defining it when first
> referencing the word advertisements.
>
> sec 6.3 -> missing "an" before increasing -> "As noted in Section 6.2,
> there is increasing interest...."
>
> sec 7 -> comma at the end of the sentence can be removed -> "when senders
> and receivers store it,"
>
> Thank you
> Sanjay
>
>