Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-11

From: Meral Shirazipour <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 22:38:59 +0000

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document:  draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-11
Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour
Review Date: 2015-12-09
IETF LC End Date:  2015-12-09
IESG Telechat date: NA

Summary:
This draft is ready to be published as Standards Track RFC but I have some comments .

Major issues:
-

Minor issues:
-Based on list comment from Aug 7, 2015 :https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/3MHdwQzBhpYzTiM5SJeHLnULEbs
It seems only one implementation tested this proposal and could not see the mechanism triggered.
If this is still the case, should the document be published as Standards track?

Nits/editorial comments:
-[Page 4], SSRC is not spelled out at first used, but later on Page 8.

-[Page 7], "o  X is estimated throughput"--->"o  X is the estimated throughput"

-[Page 11], Sec 4.2,  "is replaces MEDIA_TIMEOUT "---->"it replaces MEDIA_TIMEOUT "

-[Page 12], not sure about this comment since the sentence is too long:

"Packet loss is considered acceptable if a
      TCP flow across the same network path and experiencing the same
      network conditions would achieve an average throughput, measured
      on a reasonable time scale, that is not less than the RTP flow is
      achieving. "

suggestion: it is missing a "what"---->"...., that is not less than what the RTP flow is achieving."

-[Page 15], "There is an upper bound on the amount of loss can be corrected,"--missing 'that'-->"There is an upper bound on the amount of loss that can be corrected,"

-[Page 16], "SHOULD NOT be restarted automatically unless the sender has received information that the congestion has dissipated."
How will the sender receive that information? if would be clearer to add a sentence for that.

-[Page 16], last sentence, "a misbehaving phone"---suggestion--->"a misbehaving phone call"

-[Page 17], "ECN Feedback Report report"--suggestion-->"ECN Feedback Report"

-[Page 17],"in an compound"---->"in a compound"

-[Page 18], "purposes, others provided"---->"purposes, others provide"

-[Page 19], "to trigger and disrupting"---->to trigger and disrupt"

-General: The draft considers ECN... I was expecting to also see a note about ConEx or other future protocols and how they could potentially contribute to trigger congestion conditions.

Best Regards,
Meral
---
Meral Shirazipour
Ericsson
Research
www.ericsson.com