[rmcat] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-rmcat-scream-cc-07

Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 15 March 2017 09:18 UTC

Return-Path: <mls.ietf@gmail.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 32FD31299CB for <rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 02:18:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 naehee0JFiAi for <rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 02:18:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-x22e.google.com (mail-wr0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::22e]) (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 694551299D2 for <rmcat@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 02:18:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id u108so6613453wrb.3 for <rmcat@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 02:18:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:subject:to:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=3XuBS7a0DBKNQU8gnmvj5sceOxvJ2RO9x6Pz2CtvYIg=; b=dzUKGYQMvxdjbWNpwYOSeO9dSkOT/YJ0qSRFCLJVsT8L3pCjNLab6B/GFvy5uAdrke vBRY6FVBnb0FNU8LDfxR5T5fOGtU1LKPVhklOM4FkxbxaY3vQc3mBHqRmyvkSI4D84Ip eAujg/tkTFHqy1+O/4R5wBAUfInL1WWK1GUAffusuSX3Eojkx1hmPBaVv1Pqgp778Fh3 3aZw86r8sSebKXMI9uY5jepwOggXWrV+P0340BztxvqOrN+BX5pX5d/mAFHIMJQOi5Vi x68Inmi06No2TUBxSlBb+rI42WtXU9bCrIizMqhLy3xvadDKlPe4/K/iVabX9DV0QEZC cx+Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:subject:to:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3XuBS7a0DBKNQU8gnmvj5sceOxvJ2RO9x6Pz2CtvYIg=; b=GoCqYPCtQlJu7bC1a+Vh2cH2tPfkAX+Ajq8v46xq0dLDpf+IpMn4FgZe0oY70Y9zwo cSDnhrmcXSeyc5z3bteBnT0ruCExRcY8i2odiaypZYK6XLPqLL5Xq+6Yq5pOQyZjWK/D wPuChbiOrm5MgZZgKc8tmxotsEwZFHJh/y9sQ1sV5PqSY9YZh32M19V7+RBbxNii5zRm 6FbchAIlI9N+O/rZADD8StmCJBrZH99WzGVOK8mCqCpIHKo7niIBinCzPgiEbmGdj69x rtD7ZdGudpcviWlabjTbAD3SaAr4c8fTltlp4HUUn/A2ObRw6UZo5MG4tICywwXp7VWz u2nw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2L27D7oGwNRXRpEp5U0BeIBtGGiZZ174G1IwLm1XwGqCL+OgOHOKAYKKBhSR2fzQ==
X-Received: by 10.223.168.80 with SMTP id l74mr2016276wrc.184.1489569486599; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 02:18:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mn-mn0F-2.local (p2003000611009C24D04827ED0727B076.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [2003:6:1100:9c24:d048:27ed:727:b076]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id m201sm2999712wmd.19.2017.03.15.02.18.05 for <rmcat@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 15 Mar 2017 02:18:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com>
To: "rmcat WG (rmcat@ietf.org)" <rmcat@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <6adc065d-49a6-37f3-4dea-407d2a81b6d1@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 10:18:08 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rmcat/CewY-voac0xtTDqxltsy0oE7hDU>
Subject: [rmcat] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-rmcat-scream-cc-07
X-BeenThere: rmcat@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 15 Mar 2017 09:18:10 -0000

Dear all,

Please find here the document shepherd review of

Summary:
Draft is not ready for submitting it to the AD, as it has a few items to 
be checked first which are formal issues and but no technical flaws!

Issues:
1) ID nits has a number of issues, noteable these:

a) The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does 
not match the current year
b) The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet has text 
resembling RFC 2119 boilerplate text.
c) Found something which looks like a code comment -- if you have code 
sections in the document, please surround them with '<CODE BEGINS>' and 
'<CODE ENDS>' lines.

a) is easily fixable, when recompiling the draft

b) This is a bigger issue:
The draft specifies a number of protocol behaviors, but is never using 
any of the RFC 2119 keywords. While not using the RFC 2119 keywords is 
acceptable for an experimental draft it is troublesome on the long run. 
The intention is for sure to move this draft to standards track, once 
the experimental phase is over. However, at this later stage RFC 2119 
key words will be required.

c) a bit of work, but easily fixable.

Other comments beyond idnits:

- Section 4.1.1.1: It says that the constantns are deduced from 
experiments. In what context have these experiments been specified, 
carried out and documented? Is this something you can refer you? The 
current text is a bit underspecified in that respect.

- Section 4.1.1.1, page 10, bottom:
" TARGET_BITRATE_MIN
      Min target bitrate [bps].

    TARGET_BITRATE_MAX
      Max target bitrate [bps].
"

I assume that the notion [bps] shall introduce the unit of this 
constant. Please specify that this is the notion you are using for 
specifying the unit.


- Section 9. IANA Considerations:
This is not section for IANA but more a question for the WG. Please 
remove the text from this section and place it in a new section "Open 
Issues" or similar. There is currently no request to IANA. Please state 
just this and the request to remove the section before publication as RFC.

- Appendix A.4 looks like a regular section, with the note that this is 
an experimental version and needs further vetting during the 
experimentation period, isn't it?

Thanks,

   Martin