Re: [rmcat] WGLC on draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-05

"Roni Even (A)" <roni.even@huawei.com> Tue, 10 December 2019 12:53 UTC

Return-Path: <roni.even@huawei.com>
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 250E712010D; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 04:53:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 FJjpQWpGN-DJ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 04:53:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99B9F1200A1; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 04:53:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml706-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 393B337ED6F3FDA74540; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 12:53:02 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from lhreml722-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.73) by lhreml706-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.47) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 12:53:02 +0000
Received: from lhreml722-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.73) by lhreml722-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1713.5; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 12:53:01 +0000
Received: from DGGEMM406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.214) by lhreml722-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1713.5 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 12:53:01 +0000
Received: from DGGEMM526-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.101]) by DGGEMM406-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.3.20.214]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:52:52 +0800
From: "Roni Even (A)" <roni.even@huawei.com>
To: "Roni Even (A)" <roni.even@huawei.com>, "avt@ietf.org" <avt@ietf.org>
CC: "rmcat@ietf.org" <rmcat@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: WGLC on draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-05
Thread-Index: AdWrParOQoDqW2unTp6vJCt9sZdx9AEGe1dw
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 12:52:52 +0000
Message-ID: <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD27D348A6@dggemm526-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD27D24D49@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD27D24D49@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.200.202.67]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD27D348A6dggemm526mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rmcat/2IwsZ_KfpedHxS2NAJq9lqiQwpI>
Subject: Re: [rmcat] WGLC on draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-05
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: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 12:53:07 -0000

Hi,

Some comments as individual

1. in section 10 the registration of the SDP ccfb attribute need also to include mux category


2. In section 4 it is says  "It has been shown  [I-D.ietf-rmcat-rtp-cc-feedback<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-05#ref-I-D.ietf-rmcat-rtp-cc-feedback>] that in most cases a per frame feedback is a reasonable assumption on how frequent the RTCP feedback messages can be transmitted." later in the section it talks about 50-200msec and say that a value in this range need to be negotiated.  Looking at rmcat-rtp-cc-feedback I got the impression that a report per frame is recommended.



3. A nit - please expand RTS at first occurrence, it is expanded a bit later



Roni Even


From: avt [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Roni Even (A)
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2019 9:30 AM
To: avt@ietf.org
Cc: rmcat@ietf.org
Subject: [AVTCORE] WGLC on draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-05


Hello, all!



As we discussed in Singapore, this is to announce a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-05.



Please review this document and send comments to the AVT mailing list by Thursday, December 19, 2019.





If you review the document and have nothing to add, please let the list know that as well.



Thank you!



Roni Even

AVTCore co-chair