Re: [payload] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-payload-melpe-05: (with COMMENT)

"Victor Demjanenko, Ph.D." <victor.demjanenko@vocal.com> Thu, 02 February 2017 21:30 UTC

Return-Path: <victor.demjanenko@vocal.com>
X-Original-To: payload@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: payload@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E6651294B6 for <payload@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 13:30:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 PjQeQCjIraif for <payload@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 13:30:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cuda.olm1.com (cuda.olm1.com [72.236.255.32]) (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 C7FFA129581 for <payload@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 13:30:42 -0800 (PST)
X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1486070069-092fd37c98028b0001-U2jSCT
Received: from host105.olm1.com (host105.olm1.com [72.236.255.15]) by cuda.olm1.com with ESMTP id R5ER2Kv7Lg12POhB (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 02 Feb 2017 16:14:29 -0500 (EST)
X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: victor.demjanenko@vocal.com
X-Barracuda-Apparent-Source-IP: 72.236.255.15
Received: from ClintonLT (rrcs-72-43-202-98.nys.biz.rr.com [72.43.202.98]) by host105.olm1.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DC65EB42C9B; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 16:06:17 -0500 (EST)
From: "Victor Demjanenko, Ph.D." <victor.demjanenko@vocal.com>
To: 'Mirja Kuehlewind' <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, 'The IESG' <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <148596923695.19165.12608984760618368616.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <148596923695.19165.12608984760618368616.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 16:06:16 -0500
X-ASG-Orig-Subj: RE: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-payload-melpe-05: (with COMMENT)
Message-ID: <0a8301d27d98$31d55050$957ff0f0$@demjanenko>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AdJ8rry/sfa7yNZcQ52fHvKQ3EUjugA6H29A
Content-Language: en-us
X-Barracuda-Connect: host105.olm1.com[72.236.255.15]
X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1486070069
X-Barracuda-Encrypted: ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384
X-Barracuda-URL: https://72.236.255.32:443/cgi-mod/mark.cgi
X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at olm1.com
X-Barracuda-BRTS-Status: 1
X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.01
X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.01 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=5.0 tests=BSF_SC0_MISMATCH_TO, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT
X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.3.36284 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.01 MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT Message-ID contains multiple '@' characters 0.00 BSF_SC0_MISMATCH_TO Envelope rcpt doesn't match header
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/payload/2OHQtUngq0ktaz-vCFIeAUtMXlQ>
Cc: draft-ietf-payload-melpe@ietf.org, payload-chairs@ietf.org, payload@ietf.org, roni.even@mail01.huawei.com, "'Dave Satterlee (Vocal)'" <Dave.Satterlee@vocal.com>
Subject: Re: [payload] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-payload-melpe-05: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: payload@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Payloads working group discussion list <payload.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/payload>, <mailto:payload-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/payload/>
List-Post: <mailto:payload@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:payload-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/payload>, <mailto:payload-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 21:30:46 -0000

Thank you for your comments.  We are revising our draft as per your suggestions.  The first and second items are confirmations of the changes.  The third is a question.

1.	The text has been changed to the suggestion as stated below.

2.	RFC5405 has been changed to RFC8085 both in the text and in the Normative References.

3.	RFC8083 appears to be [draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers].  As with RFC8085, it has not yet been released (but can be found by Google).  Should we use the to be release RFC8083 instead of the circuit breaker draft?

Thanks,

Victor & David


-----Original Message-----
From: Mirja Kuehlewind [mailto:ietf@kuehlewind.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 12:14 PM
To: The IESG
Cc: draft-ietf-payload-melpe@ietf.org; Roni Even; payload-chairs@ietf.org; roni.even@mail01.huawei.com; payload@ietf.org
Subject: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-payload-melpe-05: (with COMMENT)

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-payload-melpe-05: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-payload-melpe/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

- Reference to RFC5405 should be updated to RFC8085
(draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis)
- Please also add the following:
OLD:
"[...] applications that use
   RTP over UDP SHOULD implement their own congestion control above the
   UDP layer [RFC5405]."
NEW:
"[..] applications that use
   RTP over UDP SHOULD implement their own congestion control above the
   UDP layer [RFC5405] and MAY as well implement a transport circuit breaker 
   [draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers]."