IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Thu, 26 October 2017 14:05 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.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 39FD513A65C; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 07:05:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.879
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.879 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, 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 4k7gOEBQaD1V; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 07:05:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 1F50B1384F5; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 07:05:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.82] (cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v9QE5lB5024802 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 26 Oct 2017 09:05:48 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22] claimed to be [10.0.1.82]
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Message-Id: <6232F8B4-A9B8-4F54-992C-5C7821BBC6DD@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2E9CD7D6-0AF5-480D-A664-BEBC04DF5B8F"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.0 \(3445.1.7\))
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 09:05:46 -0500
In-Reply-To: <DB4PR07MB348556CB67ECEE787DAEEC3C2450@DB4PR07MB348.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-rmcat-scream-cc@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rmcat-scream-cc@ietf.org>, "mls.ietf@gmail.com" <mls.ietf@gmail.com>, "rmcat@ietf.org" <rmcat@ietf.org>, "rmcat-chairs@ietf.org" <rmcat-chairs@ietf.org>
To: Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>
References: <150896198996.4854.3978820125361547118.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <DB4PR07MB348556CB67ECEE787DAEEC3C2450@DB4PR07MB348.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.1.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rmcat/Jx8H51SzBEiRuTlViAZusWAoHJc>
Subject: Re: [rmcat] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-rmcat-scream-cc-12: (with COMMENT)
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: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 14:05:55 -0000

Hi, thanks for the response!

> On Oct 26, 2017, at 2:29 AM, Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com> 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.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email