Re: [rmcat] WG last call draft-ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests-06
"Xiaoqing Zhu (xiaoqzhu)" <xiaoqzhu@cisco.com> Fri, 05 July 2019 21:51 UTC
Return-Path: <xiaoqzhu@cisco.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 D21681201DD for <rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 14:51:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=i5Ve0l0e; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=DK+oifuV
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 iESDkeCCaoun for <rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 14:51:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BEA6812017E for <rmcat@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 14:51:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=54309; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1562363510; x=1563573110; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=IR9m/h6MIS5wvW/EnTYrdbI1iEG5HiVZFM1IGx6mkgI=; b=i5Ve0l0e562EEeM5Hez+mBo14ypJzCTTeAhG5waIp4a/CT3OMCZ8ZWi+ /f82RJoPyl3j8OF84iHmRjIyXE75RCd0NKDd/qZ/Be+4GK8q8q1Lx1LN/ 3cZvvkCFOfpAFX0HmQD8GVZFrUx26oaZSFXp5HRYQp8FgB0mPDZmVB5MN E=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:u4jhJh1S3ujiR2IysmDT+zVfbzU7u7jyIg8e44YmjLQLaKm44pD+JxKGt+51ggrPWoPWo7JfhuzavrqoeFRI4I3J8RVgOIdJSwdDjMwXmwI6B8vQGUzyK+f4bzESF8VZX1gj9Ha+YgBY
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ALAACGxR9d/49dJa1lGgEBAQEBAgEBAQEHAgEBAQGBUwUBAQEBCwGBFC9QA2pVIAQLKIQcg0cDhFKJeII2JZdGgS6BJANUCQEBAQwBASMKAgEBhEACF4IXIzQJDgEDAQEEAQECAQVtijcMhUoBAQEBAgESCAkEGQEBJQcLAQQLAgEIDgMDAQIhAQYDAgICMBQJCAIEDgUigwABgR1NAw4PAQ6ZfAKBOIhgcX8zgnkBAQWBNgKDWRiCEgMGgTQBi14XgUA/gREnDBOBTn4+gUmBGAEBA4E3BwEBNQkNCYJUMoImi3VED4FzL4R9iGONfwkCgheGVoRriEIbgiyHHoQMiiKOYIYPj3wCBAIEBQIOAQEFgVA4KoEucBU7KgGCQYFJeAwXg06FFIU/cgGBKIsZDxeCLAEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.63,456,1557187200"; d="scan'208,217";a="291930384"
Received: from rcdn-core-7.cisco.com ([173.37.93.143]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 05 Jul 2019 21:51:49 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-007.cisco.com (xch-rcd-007.cisco.com [173.37.102.17]) by rcdn-core-7.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x65Lpn2V001046 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 5 Jul 2019 21:51:49 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) by XCH-RCD-007.cisco.com (173.37.102.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 16:51:48 -0500
Received: from xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) by xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 16:51:47 -0500
Received: from NAM05-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 17:51:47 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=IR9m/h6MIS5wvW/EnTYrdbI1iEG5HiVZFM1IGx6mkgI=; b=DK+oifuVu81nQsSFQzn+ZnK9JE0kNADdbLABvEga3zksjxUl+bxj+5yLaDYlkcO4DQItcCK93K+0GCg5mCaW9TjzDtm0R7D4mKFUQ0uSI6v9si7zEGEygXCIaHv8I/IjYuiaBE9An1M4Ht5L2ijHlXsGwIGWV7LdNZYLCfR0fPI=
Received: from CY4PR11MB1559.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.172.72.140) by CY4PR11MB0053.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.171.254.154) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2052.17; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 21:37:24 +0000
Received: from CY4PR11MB1559.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::24f3:4bc5:1eb9:44df]) by CY4PR11MB1559.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::24f3:4bc5:1eb9:44df%3]) with mapi id 15.20.2032.019; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 21:37:24 +0000
From: "Xiaoqing Zhu (xiaoqzhu)" <xiaoqzhu@cisco.com>
To: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
CC: "Sergio Mena de la Cruz (semena)" <semena@cisco.com>, Zaheduzzaman Sarker <zaheduzzaman.sarker@ericsson.com>, "Jeromy Fu (jianfu)" <jianfu@cisco.com>, "Dan Tan (dtan2)" <dtan2@cisco.com>, Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>, "rmcat@ietf.org" <rmcat@ietf.org>, "Michael Ramalho (mramalho)" <mramalho@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [rmcat] WG last call draft-ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests-06
Thread-Index: AQHUrGBiH/nkUgM8YUGWCdSkTH5FLKXTAeUAgOPGUACAAZAQgP//uWiAgAGRuQCAA6OwgA==
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2019 21:37:24 +0000
Message-ID: <AB016202-6BD0-4756-8CE8-4ADEB881A02D@cisco.com>
References: <E6617C54-2372-4915-97D0-50200571B790@csperkins.org> <63ddb8a7-d0fc-f20e-1e66-8be13cc2395d@cisco.com> <9DAA8BC1-62E3-4044-9E72-F23CE5448ABE@cisco.com> <0cabdb6c-fac0-7f5b-58a3-d11d11a6d255@cisco.com> <88108E59-0361-4BE3-AB73-34C89F579B02@cisco.com> <7897E2C0-8C58-45A8-B657-958DB96E0B1F@csperkins.org>
In-Reply-To: <7897E2C0-8C58-45A8-B657-958DB96E0B1F@csperkins.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.1a.0.190609
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=xiaoqzhu@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:c0cc:1008::e4]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 46d94499-6e0c-4b63-e03a-08d70190f84b
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:CY4PR11MB0053;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: CY4PR11MB0053:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 6
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <CY4PR11MB005331FC0BCEA586C1545B48C9F50@CY4PR11MB0053.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:6108;
x-forefront-prvs: 008960E8EC
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(136003)(346002)(376002)(39860400002)(396003)(366004)(189003)(199004)(51914003)(54906003)(486006)(6436002)(476003)(30864003)(606006)(186003)(68736007)(58126008)(102836004)(8936002)(33656002)(73956011)(6116002)(64756008)(6486002)(316002)(6246003)(71190400001)(478600001)(14454004)(99286004)(25786009)(14444005)(81156014)(256004)(86362001)(81166006)(53546011)(2906002)(6306002)(6506007)(36756003)(5660300002)(966005)(236005)(76116006)(53936002)(11346002)(91956017)(8676002)(46003)(66946007)(4326008)(2616005)(66476007)(7736002)(66574012)(107886003)(54896002)(446003)(76176011)(229853002)(66556008)(66446008)(6512007)(71200400001)(6916009); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:CY4PR11MB0053; H:CY4PR11MB1559.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: PlxDBIGmn5oPAywQJfAcCyymRKLrnKKkhvobhb3ajHWl6qFy93j+e/HrvIlUzLVeGKjSEQ+sJ/OC2OVQKyjmKeFE6DYXB+S3rA5uzpsmJYcbIKvN7NsXAQJHuWbvQsb4Q46JBaH0t9jNHwP/M0Upf7f8Uf+3CJdZY0HH6j60wwUQZ/YX3EVVMBN/n+bq66ortvgd3UPf0DfDrwclLDQNMQrftQmqiOwkOXx4e3d4SQQPPNAeenBq+yAOoYTIG99Oy7aeIMXhxObP5/HMENA0biQBHsAyaF3ahLzfGHJdE4oUw6hHMp7wOkxtVgxi3u3glgLMBhxwd/1BBWP8bifM2Y+ggEx//ooqCsGOXUzkjytaF3kTsSY2ID6t2lxr1F8dXvr1SqjXoclau6zEiW4xOEpsNhK6OIbjaSLmRnbmRDY=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_AB0162026BD047568CE84ADEB881A02Dciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 46d94499-6e0c-4b63-e03a-08d70190f84b
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 05 Jul 2019 21:37:24.7313 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: xiaoqzhu@cisco.com
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY4PR11MB0053
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.17, xch-rcd-007.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-7.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rmcat/xZedGwdiaNwnTw_ijseMPoRlsq8>
Subject: Re: [rmcat] WG last call draft-ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests-06
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: Fri, 05 Jul 2019 21:52:08 -0000
Thanks for the note, Colin. The draft has been updated accordingly to incorporate Sergio’s additional comments, along with another pass of spelling/grammar checks: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests-08 Best, Xiaoqing From: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> Date: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 at 4:03 AM To: Xiaoqing Zhu <xiaoqzhu@cisco.com> Cc: "Sergio Mena de la Cruz (semena)" <semena@cisco.com>, Zaheduzzaman Sarker <zaheduzzaman.sarker@ericsson.com>, "Jeromy Fu (jianfu)" <jianfu@cisco.com>, "Dan Tan (dtan2)" <dtan2@cisco.com>, Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>, "rmcat@ietf.org" <rmcat@ietf.org>, "Michael Ramalho (mramalho)" <mramalho@cisco.com> Subject: Re: [rmcat] WG last call draft-ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests-06 Hi, If it’s easy to do, I’d recommend you make the editorial fixes now. Colin On 2 Jul 2019, at 15:04, Xiaoqing Zhu (xiaoqzhu) <xiaoqzhu@cisco.com<mailto:xiaoqzhu@cisco.com>> wrote: Thanks a lot, Sergio, for reviewing our updated draft, and also for providing further suggestions. WG Chairs – would you recommend us to update the draft again to incorporate these editorial changes, hence updating the draft from -07 to -08? Or shall we hold on to these (fairly local and minor) changes and combine them in the next round of revision? Please advise. Thanks, Xiaoqing From: Sergio Mena <semena@cisco.com<mailto:semena@cisco.com>> Date: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 at 8:17 AM To: Xiaoqing Zhu <xiaoqzhu@cisco.com<mailto:xiaoqzhu@cisco.com>> Cc: "rmcat@ietf.org<mailto:rmcat@ietf.org>" <rmcat@ietf.org<mailto:rmcat@ietf.org>>, Zaheduzzaman Sarker <zaheduzzaman.sarker@ericsson.com<mailto:zaheduzzaman.sarker@ericsson.com>>, Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com<mailto:ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>>, "Dan Tan (dtan2)" <dtan2@cisco.com<mailto:dtan2@cisco.com>>, "Michael Ramalho (mramalho)" <mramalho@cisco.com<mailto:mramalho@cisco.com>>, "Jeromy Fu (jianfu)" <jianfu@cisco.com<mailto:jianfu@cisco.com>> Subject: Re: [rmcat] WG last call draft-ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests-06 Hi Xiaoqing, draft authors, Thanks for addressing my comments. I carefully went through your answers and the updated draft. In general, I agree with the way you addressed the comments. I only have three extra comments to make. Two of them are editorial fixes I caught while going through the new version, and the third is a reaction to one of your answers (please see inline [SM]). Editorial: * (über-minor) Section 4. Fifth bullet. "[Heusse2003]since" --> "[Heusse2003] since" (missing space) * Section 4.2.4. Last bullet. "throughtput" --> "throughput" Independently of those extra comments, I believe that, overall, my review has been properly addressed and is thus complete. I hope my review helped improve the draft's quality. Thanks, Sergio On 01/07/2019 20:26, Xiaoqing Zhu (xiaoqzhu) wrote: Hi Sergio, Thanks again for your valuable review for the draft. We finally got a chance to update the draft to version -07 so as to incorporate your comments. Apologies for the long wait! https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests-07 Please find below inline detailed responses (tagged [Authors]). And, of course, any further comments or discussions are very welcome. Cheers, Xiaoqing (on behalf of all authors) On 2/6/19, 9:06 AM, "rmcat on behalf of Sergio Mena" <rmcat-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of semena@cisco.com><mailto:rmcat-bounces@ietf.orgonbehalfofsemena@cisco.com> wrote: RMCAT working group, This is my review of draft-ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests-06. I realize my review comes a few days after the deadline. Sorry about that. Hopefully it's not too late. I have structured my feedback in three parts: minor/editorial comments, "less minor" comments, and general comments. * General comments. - Although I had some (fairly minor) suggestions on the particular setup of test cases, I understand it is too late for that, as the draft is quite mature and several teams have already implemented the TCs as they are described, so this review doesn't attempt to re-discuss the values/topologies chosen for the test cases. - Wifi6. The document does not make any reference to Wifi6. I am aware of the fact the the standard is not yet finalized, but I think the announced innovations (in particular OFDMA, and the increased scheduling flexibility it mail entail) would justify at least a general mention. My suggestion is that page 11 could be a good place to introduce such a reference. Section 4.3 is another good spot. [Authors] Thanks for the great suggestion. Sec. 4 is now revised as follows. Note that we've also updated the statistics for 11ac and 11n to catch up on their evolution over time. Unless otherwise mentioned, test cases in this section are described using the underlying PHY- and MAC-layer parameters based on the IEEE 802.11n Standard. Statistics collected from enterprise Wi-Fi networks show that the two dominant physical modes are 802.11n and 802.11ac, accounting for 41% and 58% of connected devices. As Wi-Fi standards evolve over time, for instance, with the introduction of the emerging Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) products, the PHY- and MAC-layer test case specifications need to be updated accordingly to reflect such changes. ... All test cases described below can be carried out using simulations, e.g. based on [ns-2] or [ns-3]. When feasible, it is also encouraged to perform testbed-based evaluations using Wi-Fi access points and endpoints running up-to-date IEEE 802.11 protocols, such as 802.11ac and the emerging Wi-Fi 6, to verify the viability of the candidate schemes. * "less minor" - Page 6. Section 3.1.1. Please do not define the bandwidth as "infinite". That is problematic in a simulation. Rather, choose a big enough value (e.g., 10 Gbps) that is big enough so that it will not produce any congestion. [Authors] Thanks for raising this point. The text in that section is now revised as: ... The fixed user is connected to the Internet via wired connection with sufficiently high bandwidth, for instance, 10 Gbps, so that the system is resource-limited on the wireless interface. - Page 10. Last bullet. I would use the expression "non-congestion related losses" in this bullet, to be consistent with the cellular section. [Authors] We've discussed offline regarding this topic. In order to describe the nature of packet losses over Wi-Fi more accurately, the wording in the 3rd bullet point of Sec. 4 has been revised to: * Packet transmissions over Wi-Fi are susceptible to contentions and collisions over the air. Consequently, traffic load beyond a certain utilization level over a Wi-Fi network can introduce frequent collisions over the air and significant network overhead, as well as packet drops due to buffer overflow at the transmitters. This, in turn, leads to excessive delay, retransmissions, packet losses and lower effective bandwidth for applications. Note, however, that the consequent delay and loss patterns caused by collisions are qualitatively different from those induced by congestion over a wired connection. - Page 11. Last paragraph. I wonder why the cellular section recommends or suggests that the tests should be carried out only in a simulator, whereas the WiFi section recommends to also run some "evaluation" in a real testbed. [Authors] Thanks for raising this important issue. Even though it is possible to carry out tests over LTE (and 5G) networks, and actually it is already done so today, these tests cannot in the general case be carried out in a deterministic fashion or to ensure repeatability, as these network are in the control of cellular operators and there can various amounts of competing traffic in the same cell(s). In practice, it is only in underground mines that one can carry out near deterministic testing. Even there, it is not guaranteed either as workers in the mines carry with them their iPhones and Androids. Also, the underground mining setting may not reflect typical usage patterns of a urban setting. [Authors] The main reason for the lack of suggestion for testbed-based evaluations for cellular in the draft is out of the above concerns of practical feasibility, whereas Wi-Fi equipment is relatively lower cost to acquire and setup. Based on the reviewer comments, we've revised the discussion in this paragraph (Sec. 4) to tune down the level of recommendation for testbed-based Wi-Fi evaluations to "encourage": All test cases described below can be carried out using simulations, e.g. based on [ns-2] or [ns-3]. When feasible, it is also encouraged to perform testbed-based evaluations using Wi-Fi access points and endpoints running up-to-date IEEE 802.11 protocols, such as 802.11ac and the emerging Wi-Fi 6, to verify the viability of the candidate schemes. [SM] Thanks for the explanation. I find it valuable. Please consider explaining this in the draft, e.g., by squeezing a few sentences somewhere in the cellular section (suggestion: at the end of page 5). - Page 16. "Congestion control" bullet includes the acronym [TBD]. Does it mean "to be decided"? If it does, what is the decision? BTW, why aren't TCP flows used in the cellular TCs (or did I miss them?) [Authors] Good catch. This was indeed a "to-be-decided" reminder to the editors. We've updated the reference for the default congestion control scheme of TCP to [RFC5681] so as to align with the eval-test draft (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-test-10, see Sec. 5.6 and 5.7). The draft now specifies background FTP traffic over TCP (using default congestion control per RFC5681) in both Sections 3.1 and 3.2 for cellular test cases. * minor/editorial - Abstract. "These applications are typically required to implement congestion control". Grammar is correct, but somewhat ambiguous on what requires what. Suggestion: "A congestion control algorithm is typically required by these applications" - Page 4. 1st paragraph. "Besides, there are certain characteristics which make the cellular network different and challenging than other types of access network such as Wi-Fi and wired network”. Please fix grammar near the word "than". - Page 5. "The key factors to define test cases for cellular network are" should read either "for a cellular network", or "for cellular networks". There are other occurrences of this further down in the text - Page 6. In my opinion, "there should be enough amount of time" could be shortened to "there should be enough time" - Page 8. "intercity" --> "intensity" (?) - Page 11. First paragraph "singal" --> "signal" - Page 11. "Throughout this draft". I would rather say "Throughout the 'WiFi networks' section" or "Throughout this section" something similar, to avoid confusion with the cellular section - Page 12. 1st paragraph. "set up" --> "setup" - All over. Search and replace: "traffics" --> "traffic" - All over. Search and replace "followings" --> "following" [Authors] Thanks for identifying all these nits via your "minor/editorial" comments. The draft has been updated accordingly. I hope this will help improve the quality of the text. Sergio On 15/01/19 00:24, Colin Perkins wrote: > This is to announce a working group last call on the “Evaluation Test Cases for Interactive Real-Time Media over Wireless Networks” (draft-ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests-06). > > Please send any final comments to the working group mailing list and the authors by 1 February 2019. If no substantive comments are received by that time, we intend to submit this draft to the IESG for publication as an Informational RFC. > > Colin > (as WG co-chair) > > > > > -- Colin Perkins https://csperkins.org/
- [rmcat] WG last call draft-ietf-rmcat-wireless-te… Colin Perkins
- Re: [rmcat] WG last call draft-ietf-rmcat-wireles… Sergio Mena
- Re: [rmcat] WG last call draft-ietf-rmcat-wireles… Colin Perkins
- Re: [rmcat] WG last call draft-ietf-rmcat-wireles… Xiaoqing Zhu (xiaoqzhu)
- Re: [rmcat] WG last call draft-ietf-rmcat-wireles… Xiaoqing Zhu (xiaoqzhu)
- Re: [rmcat] WG last call draft-ietf-rmcat-wireles… Sergio Mena
- Re: [rmcat] WG last call draft-ietf-rmcat-wireles… Xiaoqing Zhu (xiaoqzhu)
- Re: [rmcat] WG last call draft-ietf-rmcat-wireles… Colin Perkins
- Re: [rmcat] WG last call draft-ietf-rmcat-wireles… Xiaoqing Zhu (xiaoqzhu)