[rmcat] Update of draft-ietf-rmcat-scream-cc (was RE: Shepherd review of draft-ietf-rmcat-scream-cc-07)

Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com> Mon, 29 May 2017 15:26 UTC

Return-Path: <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.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 D52C6129AAD; Mon, 29 May 2017 08:26:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ericsson.onmicrosoft.com
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 2rWWHh8wKJqX; Mon, 29 May 2017 08:26:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sesbmg23.ericsson.net (sesbmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.37]) (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 763C5129A97; Mon, 29 May 2017 08:26:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-377ff700000055fe-2c-592c3d94a6d4
Received: from ESESSHC020.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.78]) by sesbmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 76.32.22014.49D3C295; Mon, 29 May 2017 17:26:13 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from EUR01-HE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (153.88.183.145) by oa.msg.ericsson.com (153.88.183.78) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.339.0; Mon, 29 May 2017 17:26:13 +0200
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ericsson.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-ericsson-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=WBbPz+Vs/57XiZwbEjWKrE1OSotbZUOkuXYZH0ueQ00=; b=c+ThCS1vxPTy8CqQ1bDhDSx1c6hoD9L35VuzP1zEAXwg1aA7QtD100dqe4jiaEqqQk3/KlNOz7CgLWOAUtZ+weFBeT8FOgaDTHcYRf//ZFQOH0QPjzmolZRwYYGJygPRQiFhWkqcN1NRAuVbe42w1jEnb2uVKWD1L8yGWvZNRe8=
Received: from DB4PR07MB348.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.141.234.148) by DB4PR07MB348.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.141.234.148) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1124.5; Mon, 29 May 2017 15:26:10 +0000
Received: from DB4PR07MB348.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::4826:37de:a243:ea2f]) by DB4PR07MB348.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::4826:37de:a243:ea2f%17]) with mapi id 15.01.1124.017; Mon, 29 May 2017 15:26:10 +0000
From: Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>
To: Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>, Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com>, "rmcat WG (rmcat@ietf.org)" <rmcat@ietf.org>, "'rmcat-chairs@tools.ietf.org'" <rmcat-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-rmcat-scream-cc@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rmcat-scream-cc@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Update of draft-ietf-rmcat-scream-cc (was RE: [rmcat] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-rmcat-scream-cc-07)
Thread-Index: AdLYj+B7rkVnB0/qSFeOgW3QQJqaYA==
Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 15:26:10 +0000
Message-ID: <DB4PR07MB348C714F8517AFD429176E7C2F30@DB4PR07MB348.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: sv-SE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: ericsson.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;ericsson.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=ericsson.com;
x-originating-ip: [213.113.27.92]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; DB4PR07MB348; 7:crQCgzjCFoUmC9m7ZalIOrMGZAsdSz13FCjXA5EDBWAY0EvhyCqsrTlOIB65QvpCywLNodSWt/SnKYjxdQsym4PLyNZJNbGyuDE6BSik6C+1ZemNv6q+6AU3/ffI1eOn7ctsnQ8VeIrt0VFvEdQ/LP0UFAawCB4VgF+6F/jwqhY2sYvfb2/EKIMCmaL9Wtf4O7sarfpldNza2iO2LYXWE1W+omr6wElcSKZQAZgLLrvs++QLG/qeL5q6ZwGtAKTldSjxedv2NaGoRKO5aOTXknorndN0ChG+4jaaYS2eopyukkax+pd3UnqdTbUMOnkx97gEUTARPTP/B1VBoBU9ZA==
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:SKI; SCL:-1SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(6009001)(39840400002)(39860400002)(39400400002)(39450400003)(39410400002)(39850400002)(377424004)(13464003)(51914003)(189998001)(478600001)(966005)(14454004)(2906002)(39060400002)(33656002)(6306002)(99286003)(5250100002)(38730400002)(55016002)(53936002)(50986999)(9686003)(97736004)(54356999)(8676002)(15650500001)(8936002)(81166006)(3280700002)(2900100001)(66066001)(53546009)(6436002)(25786009)(6506006)(7696004)(86362001)(4326008)(74316002)(230783001)(102836003)(3660700001)(3846002)(6116002)(5660300001)(7736002)(305945005)(491001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:DB4PR07MB348; H:DB4PR07MB348.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:ovrnspm; PTR:InfoNoRecords; LANG:en;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DB4PR07MB348:
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 71a26783-9c18-4b3d-58a4-08d4a6a708b1
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(2017030254075)(201703131423075)(201703031133081); SRVR:DB4PR07MB348;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DB4PR07MB3489789DCA65E1E3D0B3745C2F30@DB4PR07MB348.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(37575265505322)(120809045254105);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040450)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(10201501046)(93006095)(93001095)(6041248)(20161123562025)(201703131423075)(201702281528075)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123555025)(20161123560025)(20161123564025)(20161123558100)(6072148); SRVR:DB4PR07MB348; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:DB4PR07MB348;
x-forefront-prvs: 0322B4EDE1
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 29 May 2017 15:26:10.0411 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 92e84ceb-fbfd-47ab-be52-080c6b87953f
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DB4PR07MB348
X-OriginatorOrg: ericsson.com
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprMKsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7n+5UW51Igx9TlCzWfDazmPR0GpNF x98WFovVNz+wObB47Jx1l91jyZKfTB5fLn9mC2CO4rJJSc3JLEst0rdL4Mq4tusWY8ECh4rj V64wNjCeseti5OSQEDCRmLjhCVsXIxeHkMARRokD/xcyQjgnGCUmP5jGBlLFItDLLLFhqw5E YhqTxJPnR1khnIeMEp+O7gCrYhOwkVh56DtYu4jAFaDEtxdMIAlmgUCJO783MYPYwgJFErcX LAFrEBEol3j5eR2UrSex4M16Foh1qhJvOjYA1XNw8ApESTxfZwESZhSQlbj//R4LxEhxiVtP 5jNB/CAgsWTPeWYIW1Ti5eN/YMcxCkxmlOjfM48NZI6EgKLEkSnlEDWyEpfmd4PdKSHQzSyx bvEnVgjnIatE37nHUFM1JXbO/84CYftK/Ju9jxHCrpWY1P4Uys6U6JjzGcr2llizrAlq6gcm iavX77BCJGQk5r4/yg7xvZTE3SudjBC2jMSLO3tZJzBqzkLy0SygY5mBdq/fpQ8RVpSY0v2Q HcTmFRCUODnzCcsCRpZVjKLFqcVJuelGxnqpRZnJxcX5eXp5qSWbGIFJ5eCW36o7GC+/cTzE KMDBqMTD+8JEJ1KINbGsuDL3EKMEB7OSCO9rVaAQb0piZVVqUX58UWlOavEhRmkOFiVxXsd9 FyKEBNITS1KzU1MLUotgskwcnFINjFXpZom/Njf0B1351Lrz6s/ooyX1e9gP7Tu7O+R1UdoC vq2Cb0vU9u3+otPsMNuTaf3vNTXrnjovqTlr7ujdtmjxlvl3ZsWvW31XbKbEgVuVvNZFSR+/ ndbYfv7Sn8z16vvevJxov+ZVjl2AUtu5qkOl/+/eXrrl3cxCd89zjSs4VZesvbr7/dGTSizF GYmGWsxFxYkAVTOsuCYDAAA=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rmcat/w0T71qmdlD3T_sM8jneBgiBOpkI>
Subject: [rmcat] Update of draft-ietf-rmcat-scream-cc (was RE: Shepherd review of draft-ietf-rmcat-scream-cc-07)
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, 29 May 2017 15:26:21 -0000

Hi

With the latest update I believe that the review comments by Martin should be addressed

Regards
Ingemar 

=========================
A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-rmcat-scream-cc-09.txt has been successfully submitted by Ingemar Johansson and posted to the IETF repository.

Name:		draft-ietf-rmcat-scream-cc
Revision:	09
Title:		Self-Clocked Rate Adaptation for Multimedia
Document date:	2017-05-29
Group:		rmcat
Pages:		36
URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rmcat-scream-cc-09.txt
Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rmcat-scream-cc/
Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rmcat-scream-cc-09
Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rmcat-scream-cc-09
Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-rmcat-scream-cc-09

Abstract:
   This memo describes a rate adaptation algorithm for conversational
   media services such as video.  The solution conforms to the packet
   conservation principle and uses a hybrid loss and delay based
   congestion control algorithm.  The algorithm is evaluated over both
   simulated Internet bottleneck scenarios as well as in a Long Term
   Evolution (LTE) system simulator and is shown to achieve both low
   latency and high video throughput in these scenarios.

                                                                                  




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ingemar Johansson S [mailto:ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com]
> Sent: den 16 mars 2017 15:37
> To: Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com>;; rmcat WG (rmcat@ietf.org)
> <rmcat@ietf.org>;
> Cc: draft-ietf-rmcat-scream-cc@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [rmcat] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-rmcat-scream-cc-07
> 
> Hi
> 
> Thanks for the review, comments inline.
> 
> /Ingemar
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Martin Stiemerling [mailto:mls.ietf@gmail.com]
> > Sent: den 15 mars 2017 10:18
> > To: rmcat WG (rmcat@ietf.org) <rmcat@ietf.org>;
> > Subject: [rmcat] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-rmcat-scream-cc-07
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > Please find here the document shepherd review of
> >
> > Summary:
> > Draft is not ready for submitting it to the AD, as it has a few items
> > to be checked first which are formal issues and but no technical flaws!
> >
> > Issues:
> > 1) ID nits has a number of issues, noteable these:
> >
> > a) The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line
> > does not match the current year
> > b) The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet has text
> > resembling RFC 2119 boilerplate text.
> > c) Found something which looks like a code comment -- if you have code
> > sections in the document, please surround them with '<CODE BEGINS>'
> > and '<CODE ENDS>' lines.
> >
> > a) is easily fixable, when recompiling the draft
> [IJ] OK
> 
> >
> > b) This is a bigger issue:
> > The draft specifies a number of protocol behaviors, but is never using
> > any of the RFC 2119 keywords. While not using the RFC 2119 keywords is
> > acceptable for an experimental draft it is troublesome on the long run.
> > The intention is for sure to move this draft to standards track, once
> > the experimental phase is over. However, at this later stage RFC 2119
> > key words will be required.
> [IJ] OK, yes. This can take a few hours to fix, should not be too troublesome, I
> hope. I had worse issues with rfc6236 as the RFC2119 keywords had to be
> chosen carefully in light of existing SDP and SIP specs. This one should be
> more simple, I hope.
> 
> >
> > c) a bit of work, but easily fixable.
> [IJ] OK
> 
> >
> > Other comments beyond idnits:
> >
> > - Section 4.1.1.1: It says that the constantns are deduced from
> experiments.
> > In what context have these experiments been specified, carried out and
> > documented? Is this something you can refer you? The current text is a
> > bit underspecified in that respect.
> [IJ] There are experiments results presented at the RMCAT meetings, last
> time was  in Berlin (https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/slides/slides-96-
> rmcat-0.pdf ), It is possible that I can present new results soon. Question is in
> which form should the results be presented ?. Is material presented at
> RMCAT sufficient.
> 
> >
> > - Section 4.1.1.1, page 10, bottom:
> > " TARGET_BITRATE_MIN
> >       Min target bitrate [bps].
> >
> >     TARGET_BITRATE_MAX
> >       Max target bitrate [bps].
> > "
> >
> > I assume that the notion [bps] shall introduce the unit of this constant.
> > Please specify that this is the notion you are using for specifying the unit.
> [IJ] If I understand it correct you mean that I should specify that [bps]
> indicate the unit "bits per second", right ?
> 
> >
> >
> > - Section 9. IANA Considerations:
> > This is not section for IANA but more a question for the WG. Please
> > remove the text from this section and place it in a new section "Open
> > Issues" or similar. There is currently no request to IANA. Please
> > state just this and the request to remove the section before publication as
> RFC.
> [IJ] OK
> 
> >
> > - Appendix A.4 looks like a regular section, with the note that this
> > is an experimental version and needs further vetting during the
> > experimentation period, isn't it?
> [IJ] Yes. The proposed feedback while waiting for some kind of generic
> feedback, this is the best one can do with existing standardized feedback.
> The feedback intensity is verified in simulator over a large range of bitrates,
> and also verified in an experimental testbed for a high quality video solution
> over LTE/5G. The objective has been to ensure a feedback rate that is not
> overly high and that at the same time does not limit throughput. It is not
> ruled out that the equations in section A.4.2 may change during the
> experimentation period.
> 
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >    Martin
> >