[rmcat] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-12: (with COMMENT)

Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 05 March 2020 10:04 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: rmcat@ietf.org
Delivered-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C1C43A1187; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 02:04:19 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria@ietf.org, rmcat-chairs@ietf.org, rmcat@ietf.org, Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com>, Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>, varun.singh@iki.fi, csp@csperkins.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.119.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Message-ID: <158340265948.14598.6334057012764853455@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2020 02:04:19 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rmcat/fJVX2g1UesSOpxgJlwB79d2U_hs>
Subject: [rmcat] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-12: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: rmcat@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 05 Mar 2020 10:04:20 -0000

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-12: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 1

   media flow's throughput.  Furthermore, the proposed algorithms are
   expected to operate within the envelope of the circuit breakers
   defined in RFC8083 [RFC8083].

The "proposed algorithms" are the congestion-control schemes, not the
evaluation procedures, right?

Section 3.1

   If the congestion control implements, retransmissions or FEC, the

nit: no comma (first one)

Section 4.4

It's too bad that we don't have more specific guidance to give on loss
generation modeling.

Section 4.5.1

   path.  Due to this, if a packet becomes overly delayed, the packets
   after it on that flow are also delayed.  This is especially true for

Doesn't this imply that the real PDV data poitns are not independent and
that we should expect simple PDF modeling to produce inaccurate or
unphysical results?