Re: [rmcat] WG last call draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-test-06

Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> Sun, 15 July 2018 19:37 UTC

Return-Path: <csp@csperkins.org>
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 946BE130DED; Sun, 15 Jul 2018 12:37:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-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 Y0sYnFZc1W8T; Sun, 15 Jul 2018 12:37:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from balrog.mythic-beasts.com (balrog.mythic-beasts.com [IPv6:2a00:1098:0:82:1000:0:2:1]) (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 3363B130E01; Sun, 15 Jul 2018 12:37:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [2001:67c:1232:144:6482:406b:2501:dffb] (port=53689) by balrog.mythic-beasts.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <csp@csperkins.org>) id 1fempb-00043i-Jp; Sun, 15 Jul 2018 20:37:24 +0100
From: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
Message-Id: <F819B214-67AE-4E8B-AF05-A81290D8EB5F@csperkins.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1C13E657-0D7E-476B-BC73-AF54C696024F"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2018 15:37:12 -0400
In-Reply-To: <B298CB34-37DB-45D2-A4F6-D52CA1E8B9BA@csperkins.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-test@ietf.org
To: "rmcat@ietf.org WG" <rmcat@ietf.org>
References: <B298CB34-37DB-45D2-A4F6-D52CA1E8B9BA@csperkins.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 4
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rmcat/K4K4139z2FvVKmGAs4OK55GuE68>
Subject: Re: [rmcat] WG last call draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-test-06
X-BeenThere: rmcat@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Sun, 15 Jul 2018 19:37:29 -0000

> On 21 Jun 2018, at 14:00, Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> wrote:
> 
> This is to announce a working group last call on “Test Cases for Evaluating RMCAT Proposals” (draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-test-06). 
> 
> Please send any final comments to the working group mailing list and the authors by 20 July 2018 (the date of the RMCAT session at IETF 102). If no substantive comments are received by that time, we intend to submit this draft to the IESG for publication as an Informational RFC.


Some quick comments on this draft:

Introduction uses RFC 2119 terms, but the draft doesn’t cite RFC 2119.
Section 5.1, 3rd bullet: rather thnan “the application will attempt to” should this be “when the application tries to”?
Section 5.1: the description of oscillations in “Expected Behaviour” suggests that they will occur, rather than they might occur if there are problems with the congestion control. Maybe change “The oscillations occur when” to “Such oscillations might occur if”? 
Section 5.1: the description of what causes oscillation is also missing some mention of them being uncontrolled/excessive rate changes; as written, it could apply to any system that probes the rate, backs off, and then increases rate again later.
Section 5.7: the introductory remarks talk about “up to 4” TCP flows, but the Competing Traffic part uses 10 TCP flows.
Security considerations: maybe say that the security considerations of eval-criteria and the relevant congestion control algorithms apply?

Colin