[rmcat] SBD write-up: minor inconsistencies to resolve

Anna Brunstrom <anna.brunstrom@kau.se> Mon, 13 November 2017 10:50 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=04906ecf66=anna.brunstrom@kau.se>
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 A64BE120726; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 02:50:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 3_Ii-y8QoERZ; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 02:50:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tiger.dc.kau.se (smtp.kau.se [193.10.220.38]) (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 6EB95129485; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 02:50:09 -0800 (PST)
To: draft-ietf-rmcat-sbd@ietf.org
From: Anna Brunstrom <anna.brunstrom@kau.se>
CC: "rmcat-chairs@ietf.org" <rmcat-chairs@ietf.org>, "rmcat@ietf.org" <rmcat@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <0d6de6f9-3f1a-f56b-a5f4-4c619f14df96@kau.se>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 11:49:55 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-ClientProxiedBy: Exch-A2.personal.kau (130.243.19.83) To Exch-A2.personal.kau (130.243.19.83)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rmcat/P01IYv7uEGKBfHoRitSWtyYXHeY>
Subject: [rmcat] SBD write-up: minor inconsistencies to resolve
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: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 10:50:12 -0000

Dear David and co-authors,

When preparing the write-up for the SBD draft I found some smaller 
inconsistencies, mainly in the Definitions section, see comments below. 
Could you please submit a new version resolving the issues. The write-up 
is ready for the draft to be submitted for publication once the new 
version is available.

Thanks,
Anna


Comments from draft write-up review:

In section 2:

- M is defined twice. Also the value is restricted to "where M <= N" in 
the definition of E_M, but I think this applies to M in general and 
should be part of the definition of M.

- sum_N and num_VM are defined but never used in the rest of the text

- num_MT and sum_M are not defined but used later in  the text

- punctuation is also inconsistent in this section in case you want to 
fix that while editing

In section 2.1:

- For p_* : "Flows are separated when the skew_est|var_est|freq_est 
measure is greater than p_s|p_f|p_d|p_mad." - There are three measures 
for four thresholds?

- p_l is not described.

In section 3.2.3:

- second last line: "For calculation of freq_est p_v=0.7" - This line 
seems misplaced and redundant as freq_est is discussed in 3.2.4 and the 
value of p_v is discussed there.

- last line: "For the grouping threshold p_mad=0.1" - Also not sure that 
this really fits here, but should perhaps rather be mentioned in 3.3.1 
instead? But ok if you want to keep it.

Section 6:

- "The algorithm described in this memo has so far been evaluated using 
simulations." - Should this be "... simulations and small scale 
experiments" or the experiments in the LCN paper are not relevant to 
mention?

- "Real network tests using the proposed congestion control algorithms 
will help confirm the default parameter choice." - Not clear what " the 
proposed congestion control algorithm" refers to.

References:

- As you are making an update, please also update 
[I-D.ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc] and  [I-D.dt-rmcat-feedback-message] to the 
latest version, using the avtcore version for the feedback message draft.