[rmcat] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-rmcat-scream-cc-12: (with COMMENT)
Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 25 October 2017 02:33 UTC
Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rmcat@ietf.org
Delivered-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 844571397F9; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 19:33:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-rmcat-scream-cc@ietf.org, Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com>, rmcat-chairs@ietf.org, mls.ietf@gmail.com, rmcat@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.63.2
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <150889879749.4870.9970558833072960470.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 19:33:17 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rmcat/0g6zY-PjM_fctXhDoDwA13pHpVU>
Subject: [rmcat] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-rmcat-scream-cc-12: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: rmcat@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 25 Oct 2017 02:33:17 -0000
Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-rmcat-scream-cc-12: Yes 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-rmcat-scream-cc/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm a Yes with lots of questions and comments. You may be educating me, rather than making text changes, as seems appropriate. Because 4.1.1.1. Constants The RECOMMENDED values, within (), for the constants are deduced from experiments. provides recommended, but not required, constant values (which is fine), could you say something about, or just provide a reference to, those experiments, so that implementers and deployers could verify that they are in an environment that was considered by the working group? I'd also note that most of the constants, but not all, have associated text that says basically "if you dork with this constant, here's what's likely to change". Some of those constants are pretty self-evident even to me, but not all of them. That could have been intentional, but the working group is likely to have a better grip on that than J. Typical Coder On A Deadline in a couple of years, so if there are useful things to say, I'd imagine people would listen to you. Is QDELAY_TREND_TH (0.2) Averaging factor for qdelay_fraction_avg. QDELAY_TREND_TH (0.2) Averaging factor for qdelay_fraction_avg. a duplicate? In this text, rtp_queue_size (0 bits) Size of RTP packets in queue. rtp_size (0 byte) Size of the last transmitted RTP packet. is "size" being used in the same way (so, rtp_queue_size would be the total number of bytes in queue)? But I'm guessing. Maybe "Sum of the sizes of RTP packets in queue"? ISTM that Note that the pseudo code does not show all details for reasons of readability, the reader is encouraged to look into the C++ code in [SCReAM-CPP-implementation] for the details. might make SCReAM-CPP-implementation a normative reference. Does "encouraged to look at" mean "really needs to look at"? In this text, It is desired to avoid the case that the qdelay target is increased due to self-congestion, indicated by a changing qdelay and consequently an increased qdelay_norm_var_t. Still it SHOULD be possible to increase the qdelay target if the qdelay continues to be high. I got lost in the passive tense. Is this saying that *an implementation* should be able to increase the qdelay target algorithmically? This text, If it is deemed unlikely that competing flows occur over the same bottleneck, the algorithm described in this section MAY be turned off. However, when sending over the Internet, often the network conditions are not known for sure. Therefore turning this algorithm off must be considered with caution as that can lead to basically zero throughput if competing with other, loss based, traffic. bothers me a bit, because I'm not sure how a transport implementation knows that it's sending over the Internet. We have discussions from time to time about networks that are playing games with non-RFC 1918 addresses and NATs, for instance, and networks that are directly interconnected can be using routable addresses, while not "sending over the Internet". Is the point that an implementation that turns the algorithm off is well-advised to detect that it should turn the algorithm on? I couldn't parse A strict rule can lead to that the media bitrate will have difficulties to increase as the congestion window puts a too hard restriction on the media frame size variation. without guessing. I lost my way at "can lead to that the media bitrate".
- [rmcat] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-rmcat-… Spencer Dawkins