Re: [rmcat] WG last call: draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-07.txt
Joerg Ott <ott@in.tum.de> Mon, 16 July 2018 12:17 UTC
Return-Path: <ott@in.tum.de>
X-Original-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 876B6130E31; Mon, 16 Jul 2018 05:17:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 LO0q2KDP8pmh; Mon, 16 Jul 2018 05:17:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-out2.informatik.tu-muenchen.de (mail-out2.informatik.tu-muenchen.de [131.159.0.36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA077130DC7; Mon, 16 Jul 2018 05:17:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.in.tum.de (Postfix, from userid 107) id F1C701C2AE3; Mon, 16 Jul 2018 14:17:33 +0200 (CEST)
Received: (Authenticated sender: ott) by mail.in.tum.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2E1701C2AE1; Mon, 16 Jul 2018 14:17:31 +0200 (CEST) (Extended-Queue-bit tech_pizdz@fff.in.tum.de)
To: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>, draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria@ietf.org
Cc: "rmcat@ietf.org WG" <rmcat@ietf.org>
References: <152520102721.24767.12952595432840747794@ietfa.amsl.com> <A4BAE605-587F-4546-96E5-0C13310A289D@csperkins.org> <88FA7E60-241E-4DF8-A233-688961BCB6E9@csperkins.org> <B12D2E22-12A7-4FCA-B892-32FCE7C18263@csperkins.org>
From: Joerg Ott <ott@in.tum.de>
Message-ID: <85d22725-b7e2-d8e5-cad8-58044ffca0fb@in.tum.de>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 08:17:30 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <B12D2E22-12A7-4FCA-B892-32FCE7C18263@csperkins.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rmcat/01ZKN8lbTRwwsiU3lX6AO4h8Kug>
Subject: Re: [rmcat] WG last call: draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-07.txt
X-BeenThere: rmcat@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTP Media Congestion Avoidance Techniques \(RMCAT\) Working Group discussion list." <rmcat.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rmcat>, <mailto:rmcat-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rmcat/>
List-Post: <mailto:rmcat@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rmcat-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmcat>, <mailto:rmcat-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 12:17:42 -0000
Hi Colin, thank for the comments -- let me see if I manage to submit a revised draft during this week. Cheers, Jörg On 14.07.18 07:40, Colin Perkins wrote: > [As an individual participant] > > I’ve read this draft, and have some relatively minor, and primarily > editorial, comments: > > * Section 3 begins “Each experiment is expected to…” but the draft > hasn’t yet introduced the idea that there are some experiments that > need to be completed. > * Rather than talk about “RMCAT proposals”, “RMCAT flows”, etc., > discuss “proposed RTP congestion control algorithms”, “congestion > controlled RTP flows”, and so on. The RFC will live longer than the > RMCAT working group. > * Section 3: bullet 10 should be rephrased for clarity. > * Does Section 3.1 need to describe the precise format, or just > the information to be logged? Does it matter that the file is CSV > format? > * Section 4.1: The introductory text only talks about high latency > links, then gives examples covering a range of latencies. Expands > remarks “, as well as low-latency links” > * Section 4.2: might be appropriate to add some motivating remarks. > * Section 4.3: add some remarks to motivate drop-tail? > * Section 4.5.3: clarify if this recommended distribution applies to > both sections 4.5.1 and 4.5.2. > * Section 6.1: first paragraph ends mid-sentence. > * Section 6.3: is it worth mentioning that QUIC flows use UDP, but > are expected to have dynamics that look a lot like TCP, so don’t > need to be explicitly included here? > * Section 7: security needs to be discussed. Maybe point out > denial-of-service issues due to lack of congestion control, or > denial-of-service on the congestion controlled flow due to spoofing > of control signals, and state that the candidate algorithms should > consider. The only specific security issue I can think of the these > criteria is checking that the algorithm works as expected in these > cases. > * Please spell-check the draft. > > > Cheers, > Colin > > > >> On 20 Jun 2018, at 10:46, Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org >> <mailto:csp@csperkins.org>> wrote: >> >> This is to announce a working group last call on “Evaluating >> Congestion Control for Interactive Real-time Media” >> (draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-07). >> >> Please send any final comments to the working group mailing list and >> the authors by 20 July 2018 (the date of the RMCAT session at IETF >> 102). If no substantive comments are received by that time, we intend >> to submit this draft to the IESG for publication as an Informational RFC. >> >> Colin >> >> >> >>> On 2 May 2018, at 11:52, Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org >>> <mailto:csp@csperkins.org>> wrote: >>> >>> Jörg – thanks for updating this draft! >>> >>> Any comments from the group before we progress this? >>> >>> Colin >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 1 May 2018, at 19:57, Internet-Drafts@ietf.org >>>> <mailto:Internet-Drafts@ietf.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >>>> directories. >>>> This draft is a work item of the RTP Media Congestion Avoidance >>>> Techniques WG of the IETF. >>>> >>>> Title : Evaluating Congestion Control for Interactive >>>> Real-time Media >>>> Authors : Varun Singh >>>> Joerg Ott >>>> Stefan Holmer >>>> Filename : draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-07.txt >>>> Pages : 16 >>>> Date : 2018-05-01 >>>> >>>> Abstract: >>>> The Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) is used to transmit media in >>>> telephony and video conferencing applications. This document >>>> describes the guidelines to evaluate new congestion control >>>> algorithms for interactive point-to-point real-time media. >>>> >>>> >>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria/ >>>> >>>> There are also htmlized versions available at: >>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-07 >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-07 >>>> >>>> A diff from the previous version is available at: >>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-07 >>>> >>>> >>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of >>>> submission >>>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >>>> >>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Colin Perkins >>> https://csperkins.org/ >> > > > > -- > Colin Perkins > https://csperkins.org/ > > > >
- [rmcat] WG last call: draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-crite… Colin Perkins
- [rmcat] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteri… internet-drafts
- Re: [rmcat] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-cri… Colin Perkins
- Re: [rmcat] WG last call: draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-c… Colin Perkins
- Re: [rmcat] WG last call: draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-c… Joerg Ott
- Re: [rmcat] WG last call: draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-c… Joerg Ott
- Re: [rmcat] WG last call: draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-c… Colin Perkins
- Re: [rmcat] WG last call: draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-c… Joerg Ott
- Re: [rmcat] WG last call: draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-c… Colin Perkins