Re: [rmcat] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Joerg Ott <ott@in.tum.de> Thu, 19 March 2020 13:22 UTC

Return-Path: <ott@in.tum.de>
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 4A54A3A2707; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 06:22:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 BKQQC_Fh4xIj; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 06:22:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-out1.informatik.tu-muenchen.de (mail-out1.in.tum.de [131.159.0.8]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 171C73A23A0; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 06:22:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.in.tum.de (Postfix, from userid 107) id 3A7AE1C080E; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 14:22:01 +0100 (CET)
Received: (Authenticated sender: ott) by mail.in.tum.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D73621C0806; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 14:21:57 +0100 (CET) (Extended-Queue-bit tech_crveb@fff.in.tum.de)
To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: "rmcat-chairs@ietf.org" <rmcat-chairs@ietf.org>, "varun.singh@iki.fi" <varun.singh@iki.fi>, "draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria@ietf.org>, Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com>, "rmcat@ietf.org" <rmcat@ietf.org>, Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
References: <158324752207.7683.15663429456876412351@ietfa.amsl.com> <05afa3e4-786b-f8b0-670b-510cfd961482@in.tum.de> <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC0216FA0696@marchand>
From: Joerg Ott <ott@in.tum.de>
Message-ID: <dce9000e-45de-ec95-af3c-01c56607841b@in.tum.de>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 14:21:56 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC0216FA0696@marchand>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rmcat/MH4V3KOpwtcD3etjoJTOtrDf4Xo>
Subject: Re: [rmcat] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 13:22:10 -0000

Hi Roman,

thanks much, since the ref is already included in -13 we should be
happily done.

Best,
Jörg

On 19.03.20 00:18, Roman Danyliw wrote:
> Hi Joerg!
> 
> Thanks for the update.  -13 addresses my DISCUSS points.  One non-blocking comment on a COMMENT inline ...
> 
> Thanks,
> Roman
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: iesg <iesg-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Joerg Ott
> Sent: Monday, March 9, 2020 3:56 PM
> To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>rg>; The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
> Cc: rmcat-chairs@ietf.org; varun.singh@iki.fi; draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria@ietf.org; Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com>om>; rmcat@ietf.org; Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
> Subject: Re: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> Dear Roman,
> 
> thanks much for your comments.  I just posted an updated draft (-13) to address those.  See below.
> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> DISCUSS:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Section 5.2.  Per “Sample video test sequences are available at:
>> [xiph-seq] and [HEVC-seq].  The following two video streams are the
>> recommended minimum for
>> testing: Foreman and FourPeople.”, these test sequences seems underspecified.
>>
>> ** Is the “recommended” here intended to be normative?  There is no
>> RFC2119 boiler plate in this document to guide the parsing of the text.
> 
> Recommended is recommended as per English language and it not used as a verb but as an adjective, indicating a suggestion.
> 
>> ** From the text, there wasn’t much precision in where to find these
>> recommended videos (Foreman and FourPeople).  At the url pointed to by
>> [HEVC-seq], I found the filenames “FourPeople_1280x720_60.yuv” and
>> “foreman15_4000.yuv”, is that them?
> 
> This is fixed in the rev now, also the link that disappeared is removed.
> 
>> ** Is it expected for
>> http://www.netlab.tkk.fi/~varun/test_sequences/foreman15_4000.yuv to
>> be 0 bytes?  I tried on 03/03/2020 at ~0950 EST
> 
> The broken link is gone now.  Both videos can be found in a single place now.  It is clearer specified where to find them.
> 
>> ** Give that that one of the recommended urls doesn’t work even before
>> this draft is published, I have great reservation with keeping a
>> normative “recommended” to such external repositories.  However,
>> providing pointers to repositories of “sample video test sequences” makes sense to me and is helpful.
> 
> Should be addressed by now.
> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> ** Section 3.1.  The purpose of this log isn’t clear.  What is the
>> relationship of it to the metrics described in the previous section?
>> Where does it fit into the measurement workflow?  Is this constructed
>> on a per packet capture file basis?
> 
> Added a clarifying sentence:
> 
> These data should suffice to compute the media-encoding independent metrics described above.  Use of a common log will allow simplified post-processing and analysis across different implementations.
> 
>> ** References:
>> -- Section 3.  Consider adding a citation for tcpdump and wireshark
> 
> done
> 
>> -- Section 4.4.  Consider adding a citation for the “Bilbert-Elliot”
>> model
> 
> We got this comment also from Mirja, to which I replied:
> 
> I could include a reference here for Gilbert-Elliot such as:
> http://www.ohohlfeld.com/paper/hasslinger_hohlfeld-mmb_2008.pdf
> 
> [Roman]  Since it would be informative, I don't think it would hurt to add this citation.
> 
> However, this not mandatory text and the second part of the sentence is even less specific and does (deliberately) not give a specific example.  We don't want to create any prejudice here beyond random losses.  The Internet changes, after all.
> 
> In order to avoid this being a showstopper here (we don't have enough hour tonight for another rev round, I am adding this in now.  Please provide feedback if this is really needed.  I could still remove it in two weeks when I-D submission reopens.
> 
>> ** Editorial:
>> -- Section 3.  Recommend explicitly spelling out PCAP as packet capture.
> 
> This is spelled out in brackets; since this also refers to a commonly used file format, I would keep it as is.
> 
>> -- Section 4.5. s/is is/is/
> 
> Fixed.
> 
> Thanks much,
> Jörg
> 
>