Standard Communication with Network Elements
charter-ietf-scone-02

Yes

Zaheduzzaman Sarker

No Objection

Deb Cooley
Erik Kline
Francesca Palombini
Gunter Van de Velde
Jim Guichard
John Scudder
Mahesh Jethanandani
Murray Kucherawy
Paul Wouters
Roman Danyliw
Éric Vyncke

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-03 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Do we approve of this charter?"

Zaheduzzaman Sarker
Yes
Deb Cooley
No Objection
Erik Kline
No Objection
Francesca Palombini
No Objection
Gunter Van de Velde
No Objection
Jim Guichard
No Objection
John Scudder
No Objection
Mahesh Jethanandani
No Objection
Comment (2024-10-15 for -00-03) Sent 
Paragraph 5
> The throughput advice serves as a guideline to enhance user experience
> and represents the maximum bitrate manageable by a single network
> element. It is not a strict indicator of network congestion. This
> mechanism focuses on throughput advice intended for adaptive bitrate
> applications and is not a replacement for congestion control algorithms
> and mechanisms like BBR, ECN, and L4S.

Are all these acronyms well known?

Paragraph 5
> This mechanism will allow network elements to update the throughput
> advice as needed.

This sentence does not add up for me. What mechanism is being referred to? Is it the mechanims of network elements communicating "throughput advice" to a sender? If so, isn't it obvious that an update can be provided? And what does it mean when it says "as needed"?

Paragraph 5
> To achieve the goals listed above, the working group will
> determine whether it is necessary for an endpoint to explicitly signal
> its capability of receiving throughput advice, and whether it is
> necessary for an endpoint to confirm its receipt of throughput advice.

What is an "endpoint"? I see the use of "applications" or "sender of packets". If they are the same, can one term be used to describe all of them?

"QUIC.", paragraph 3
> - need not be a congestion signal appropriate to be used as input to a congestion control algorithm.

I thought it was already called out that the mechanism defined by the WG WILL NOT be a congestion indicator. Why use not use a more assertive term like "will not be a congestion signal"?

"QUIC.", paragraph 2
> - need not provide information other than the throughput advice.

Same here. Why not "will not provide information other than throughput advice"?
Murray Kucherawy
No Objection
Paul Wouters
No Objection
Roman Danyliw
No Objection
Comment (2024-10-16 for -00-03) Not sent 
** s/Develop standard protocol/Develop a proposed standard protocol/
Éric Vyncke
No Objection