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

"Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Fri, 03 February 2017 08:12 UTC

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 $3259$)
From: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
In-Reply-To: <0a8301d27d98$31d55050$957ff0f0$@demjanenko@vocal.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2017 09:06:04 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FFB4517A-7718-430A-834F-A29D6A31B7B7@kuehlewind.net>
References: <148596923695.19165.12608984760618368616.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <0a8301d27d98$31d55050$957ff0f0$@demjanenko@vocal.com>
To: "Victor Demjanenko, Ph.D." <victor.demjanenko@vocal.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/payload/W9T4AIVqrTvpqlgAgBXvojVYVlI>
Cc: draft-ietf-payload-melpe@ietf.org, payload-chairs@ietf.org, payload@ietf.org, roni.even@mail01.huawei.com, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "Dave Satterlee (Vocal)" <Dave.Satterlee@vocal.com>
Subject: Re: [payload] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-payload-melpe-05: (with COMMENT)
Precedence: list

Hi Victor,

thanks! See below.

> Am 02.02.2017 um 22:06 schrieb Victor Demjanenko, Ph.D. <victor.demjanenko@vocal.com>:
> 
> 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?

That’s rather a question for the RFC Editor. I know that RFC8085 will be published very soon and most likely be fore this doc. RFC8083 however is clustered with some other documents and I don’t when they will be ready. However, if you just leave the draft name, the RFC Editor will do the right thing and eventually replace it with the RFC number.

Mirja


> 
> 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]."
> 
>

[payload] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft… Mirja Kuehlewind
Re: [payload] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on d… Victor Demjanenko, Ph.D.
Re: [payload] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on d… Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)