[rmcat] AD review of draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-10

Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Wed, 08 January 2020 12:17 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
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 1D2261200B4; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 04:17:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 08Fq4TO4ApNp; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 04:17:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de (wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de [IPv6:2a01:488:42:1000:50ed:8223::]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51CEC120089; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 04:17:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 200116b82ce1a4005104981634920ee5.dip.versatel-1u1.de ([2001:16b8:2ce1:a400:5104:9816:3492:ee5]); authenticated by wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) id 1ipAH9-0003tO-E1; Wed, 08 Jan 2020 13:17:27 +0100
From: Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Message-Id: <3B17A1D8-6743-4513-853B-F8FEAFE604DC@kuehlewind.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2020 13:17:26 +0100
Cc: rmcat@ietf.org
To: draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria.all@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de;ietf@kuehlewind.net;1578485852;cf8d83a2;
X-HE-SMSGID: 1ipAH9-0003tO-E1
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rmcat/0Fi8rwDdYg2iBr23-0NF99FLSpc>
Subject: [rmcat] AD review of draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-10
X-BeenThere: rmcat@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 08 Jan 2020 12:17:34 -0000

Hi authors,

I have reviewed draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-10 in order to move it ahead. I think it’s really for IETF last call and we can start it right now if you what. 
Of course based on my review I have a couple of comments anyway below. Please let me know if you want to address these comments (first) or if I can go ahead and start IETF last call?

Mirja

————————————
AD review comments:

One high level comment: 

The intro says:
"This document only provides broad-level criteria for evaluating a new
   congestion control algorithm. “
However, this doc doesn’t really provide that much criteria, it rather specifies evaluation metrics and testing parameter/models. Under criteria I would rather understand something like we have for every test case (“In this scenario, the flows should share the available capacity roughly equally.”). I’m not proposing to extend this doc this way as most criteria might be scenario specific but it could at least say that criteria are further described with the test cases and then the intro could be adapted to better reflect the actual content of the doc.



Other small technical comments:

- sec 4.2: Losses of 10% or 20% seems really high. Is that really needed? Where that values even used in any of the results presented?

- sec 4.4: Do you maybe have a reference for the Gilbert-Elliot model? And what’s exactly meant by "losses generated by modeling a queue including its (different) drop behaviors”? Do you have a reference for that as well? Maybe there are also some IPPM RFCs that could be referred here?

- I don’t quite understand this sentence in section 6.1:
“This covers the case where the short TCP flows are not fetching a video file.”
Wouldn’t it be better to say but case it does covers?
Also you say file sizes of 30-50 KB: Should they be equally distributed?



Editorial comments/nits:

- Sec 3 maybe: s/The following are calculated based on/The following metrics are calculated based on/

- It doesn’t seem that section 5 is needed at all, given draft-ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests is already mention in the intro.

- sec 6.2: "The currently chosen video streams are: Foreman and FourPeople.”
“currently” is a bit weird here, maybe: “The following video streams are recommended for testing.”…?

- sec 7: s/congestion control protocola/congestion control protocols/