[video-codec] Mirja Kühlewind's Abstain on draft-ietf-netvc-requirements-09: (with COMMENT)
Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 05 June 2019 19:31 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: video-codec@ietf.org
Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2461412022B; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 12:31:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-netvc-requirements@ietf.org, Mo Zanaty <mzanaty@cisco.com>, netvc-chairs@ietf.org, mzanaty@cisco.com, video-codec@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.97.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Message-ID: <155976310906.22306.2176020957912099391.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2019 12:31:49 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/video-codec/f1WN3XrHA1RbpfD50EM7eoVt398>
Subject: [video-codec] Mirja Kühlewind's Abstain on draft-ietf-netvc-requirements-09: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list <video-codec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/video-codec>, <mailto:video-codec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/video-codec/>
List-Post: <mailto:video-codec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:video-codec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec>, <mailto:video-codec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2019 19:31:51 -0000
Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-netvc-requirements-09: Abstain 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-netvc-requirements/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I would expect that this document also mentions the interaction with congestion control, e.g. see RMCAT. All I can find is this, which seems very high level: "3.1.7. Specifications providing integration with system and delivery layers should be developed." Further the security consideration section is rather brief while it actually does mention security requirements. In a requirement document I would have expected that these requirements are clearly spelled out and explained, as well as risks/attacks are discussed. And why is section 4 in this document and not in draft-ietf-netvc-testing? Another minor comment: Sec 2: "for instance, wired channels are considerably more error- free than wireless channels and therefore require different QoS approaches." I don't think this is generally true as most mobile networks repair losses on the lower layers.
- [video-codec] Mirja Kühlewind's Abstain on draft-… Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker