Re: [rmcat] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-rmcat-scream-cc-12: (with COMMENT)

[Ingemar Johansson S <[e-mail]>]

Hi
I just submitted an updated version that should address the DISCUSS as well as the Comments.

Regards
/Ingemar


======
A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-rmcat-scream-cc-13.txt has been successfully submitted by Ingemar Johansson and posted to the IETF repository.

Name:		draft-ietf-rmcat-scream-cc
Revision:	13
Title:		Self-Clocked Rate Adaptation for Multimedia
Document date:	2017-10-26
Group:		rmcat
Pages:		38
URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rmcat-scream-cc-13.txt 
Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rmcat-scream-cc/ 
Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rmcat-scream-cc-13 
Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rmcat-scream-cc-13 
Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-rmcat-scream-cc-13 

Abstract:
   This memo describes a rate adaptation algorithm for conversational
   media services such as interactive video.  The solution conforms to
   the packet conservation principle and uses a hybrid loss and delay
   based congestion control algorithm.  The algorithm is evaluated over
   both simulated Internet bottleneck scenarios as well as in a Long
   Term Evolution (LTE) system simulator and is shown to achieve both
   low latency and high video throughput in these scenarios.

                                                                                  
======================



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ingemar Johansson S [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: den 26 oktober 2017 20:17
> To: Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>
> Cc: The IESG <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-rmcat-scream-cc-12: (with
> COMMENT)
> 
> Hi
> 
> Regarding the comment on 4.1.2.3   Realized that I looked in the wrong
> section. I will rewrite this section completely to make it more
> comprehensible.
> 
> Regards
> Ingemar
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ben Campbell [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: den 26 oktober 2017 16:06
> > To: Ingemar Johansson S <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: The IESG <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> > [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-rmcat-scream-cc-12:
> > (with
> > COMMENT)
> >
> > Hi, thanks for the response!
> >
> > > On Oct 26, 2017, at 2:29 AM, Ingemar Johansson S
> > <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> - 4.1.2.3, last paragraph: Ditto for the SHOULD
> > > [IJ] Not sure I am convinced. It order for the loss detection and
> > > congestion
> > control adjustment to work properly, it is important to only react at
> > most once per RTT, otherwise the bitrate can become reduced too much.
> >
> >
> > The text says "Still it SHOULD be possible to increase the qdelay
> > target if the qdelay continues to be high.” That sounds like a general
> > statement about the possibility. Is that intended to ask
> > implementations to _make_ it possible? If so, it would help to clarify
> > the actor and specific action that the SHOULD applies to.
> >
> > [Otherwise, your responses all look fine.]
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Ben.