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/
> 
> 
> 
>