Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-mops-ar-use-case-15

Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> Fri, 29 March 2024 16:00 UTC

Return-Path: <wes@mti-systems.com>
X-Original-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6884AC14F6A0 for <tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Mar 2024 09:00:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mti-systems-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QVBoyZT2_6Oz for <tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Mar 2024 09:00:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x32c.google.com (mail-ot1-x32c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32c]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F1AFC14F69D for <tsv-art@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Mar 2024 09:00:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x32c.google.com with SMTP id 46e09a7af769-6e6b01c3dc3so1194824a34.2 for <tsv-art@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Mar 2024 09:00:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mti-systems-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1711728002; x=1712332802; darn=ietf.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=A1ELeeaBsMR4G5sLvzdMlRnj0uVjo39y9YQYmyTG7d8=; b=MWg0SWxdx+PUzCM4ccgI7n+kme9obIiLWk8XDEbQ3CrB2CiOr6mZeYh2m2q9TdHoGA AHTuklHzRlBvQnNVaPzV/kGEtQFhIv1gY99eghLU+E4edsGCnF/qOS009OgiRq2mLdNq Qr4cYZdQslo/8uLM93Ws2ptkVcM3wR2cvvvWNrFp7yokj2chiF77MqdPINadYojjJ4IF O8EYYTmYgCaG/W+C+pr32A/o9CSy+6zQlhB4PI+16TXYd5wqmW0yT8ktYz/FIqO7Eiq+ XzqgTKK6OonRFVaH4oFpUKvQxq8crLaef1iNy5vnID6KbKpDgoba4QRQye2j3l8+yksi Zsng==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1711728002; x=1712332802; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=A1ELeeaBsMR4G5sLvzdMlRnj0uVjo39y9YQYmyTG7d8=; b=FzU5kMi+o/Qc2wzwdBjaqzbjgcf/dTzW3iV2cZDUzeuxZhopfdaFtSKDNYE3eVPirT t7wXaBmnd7y2B9rm6XaQ5U9qV7bGG08Z48yt3yfV9fXN7uTKADo0M+syLxq7n2iWJGkT O0QMKtB+TvWJGwQGrXTiMt5L/5s1mgN0VllL3q8pBzxfJbkhtMm3U1ePgsgB76SZ8dUe XgLE4OnzVxY0fGMnknXTZGs0MJ3DcVmlxjOEvOxrpMfeIidw6+H094YIMk8Xt0f1T69u 59GDWHV5gh6/zntfxsJbwfuUuB5/hfRtxwWboNuoxbcjnDWJP0f3RWUMyLIYRn0AJDdp djAQ==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCW9WtFMGG4xxiiUf4JzuduNNm/3wl9l5800A3Nyi380amTQGzP1xgSMyTLC506kJ0bwpCKPXbLzxmHNW3ppXbdv
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyP8gzjgIEL74NKWXPob978Drhf2fGI2Nd6iYiQg/RXfrNgQBVn LwxCd5BPoi81uttpiqV/mKUOD9HNMM8NLOJtlR4tzFu3iU1nAqbbAqbEkCNUWPk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHMD9iRt4zzl7QLOijq6w1/3HUf+7JruI5VWfroMp3uEmXVNrJyYHIXX/LKUTcrz0Cgd90QZQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:67c5:0:b0:6e6:a2ea:5488 with SMTP id c5-20020a9d67c5000000b006e6a2ea5488mr2619877otn.35.1711728001987; Fri, 29 Mar 2024 09:00:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.241] (069-135-001-122.biz.spectrum.com. [69.135.1.122]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id gf12-20020a056214250c00b00698d06df322sm1218849qvb.122.2024.03.29.09.00.00 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 29 Mar 2024 09:00:00 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <c358c837-7d86-4bec-a154-639258942c6d@mti-systems.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 11:59:58 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: Renan Krishna <Renan.Krishna@InterDigital.com>, "tsv-art@ietf.org" <tsv-art@ietf.org>
Cc: "draft-ietf-mops-ar-use-case.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mops-ar-use-case.all@ietf.org>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>, "mops@ietf.org" <mops@ietf.org>
References: <171142303085.48615.3961339532571490114@ietfa.amsl.com> <DM4PR10MB61093A636D6D3B1C80779EC097342@DM4PR10MB6109.namprd10.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM4PR10MB61093A636D6D3B1C80779EC097342@DM4PR10MB6109.namprd10.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/qoOEoXGtUzEMBkY-FDSj_SazmyA>
Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-mops-ar-use-case-15
X-BeenThere: tsv-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Review Team <tsv-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsv-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsv-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 16:00:07 -0000

To get some of the required behaviors may involve the operator 
supporting/configuring features in their network that allow a transport 
to function within the necessary performance envelope.

For instance, the operator may need to configure:

- AQM

- ECN

- L4S

- DiffServ PHBs

- etc.


On 3/27/2024 10:59 AM, Renan Krishna wrote:
> Hi Wesley,
>
> Many Thanks for your review. Although, the issue of what transport or other protocols need to do is important, we feel that it is out of scope of our document. Our document is intended for "network operators who are interested in providing edge computing resources to operationalize the requirements of such applications". At the time the application is being operationalized by a network operator, the decision of what happens at the transport layer has already been made by for example the application developer. So, we have omitted any discussion of such issues in our draft.
>
> Regards,
> Renan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wesley Eddy via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2024 3:17 AM
> To: tsv-art@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-ietf-mops-ar-use-case.all@ietf.org; last-call@ietf.org; mops@ietf.org
> Subject: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-mops-ar-use-case-15
>
> Reviewer: Wesley Eddy
> Review result: Ready with Issues
>
> This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF discussion list for information.
>
> When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review.
>
> The document reads well and is easy to understand.  It is a nice overview of the use case that it describes, and does a great job explaining terminology and providing relevant resources.
>
> My only issue with the present revision, is that in reviewing from a TSVART perspective, I see that there is discussion of latency and bandwidth needs, but there does not seem to be much discussion of what the transport or other protocols need to do to facilitate the use case.  For instance, are there multiple independent streams (for audio, video, and data), and how many, that would make use of either multiple independent transport connections (with their own congestion control), or multiple streams within a QUIC or SCTP association?
>   Would an unreliable datagram service be preferable to a retransmission-based / reliable service for some or all of the streams?  Would FEC be useful?  The rates discussed are very high; are there congestion control needs e.g. fast startup, smooth/scalable responses, coupling with ABR, etc. that need to be explored?
>
>
> [Banner]
>
> [Banner]<http://www.interdigital.com/white_papers/defining-the-xr-experience-enabling-the-immersivity-ecosystem-?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=Email&utm_term=xr&utm_content=banner&utm_campaign=defining_the_xr_experience>
>
> Defining the XR Experience: Enabling the Immersivity Ecosystem<http://www.interdigital.com/white_papers/defining-the-xr-experience-enabling-the-immersivity-ecosystem-?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=Email&utm_term=xr&utm_content=banner&utm_campaign=defining_the_xr_experience>
> This e-mail is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or otherwise protected from disclosure to anyone other than its intended recipient. Unintended transmission shall not constitute waiver of any privilege or confidentiality obligation. If you received this communication in error, please do not review, copy or distribute it, notify me immediately by email, and delete the original message and any attachments. Unless expressly stated in this e-mail, nothing in this message or any attachment should be construed as a digital or electronic signature.