Duplication Delay Attribute in the Session Description Protocol
draft-ietf-mmusic-delayed-duplication-03
Yes
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Ted Lemon)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(Brian Haberman)
(Jari Arkko)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Pete Resnick)
(Spencer Dawkins)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -02)
Unknown
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -02)
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02)
Unknown
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-11-15 for -02)
Unknown
-- Section 3 -- Where does the new ABNF production, "delaying-attribute", fit into other ABNF? Should this be extending an existing ABNF element to add "delaying-attribute" as a new possible value (from a formal ABNF point of view)? Is a dupliation delay of 0 semantically valid?
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-12-16)
Unknown
thanks.
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02)
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02)
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02)
Unknown
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-11-19 for -02)
Unknown
Section 1: "Furthermore, delayed duplication must not be used in cases where the primary cause of packet loss is congestion" Like Benoit, I agree that this sentence is confusing. Do you really mean something like the following? """ Delayed duplication (or duplication at all) is harmful in cases where the primary cause of packet loss is congestion, rather than network than a network outage due to a temporary link or network element failure. Duplication should only be used by endpoints that want to protect against network failures; protection against congestion must be achieved through other means. """
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-12-06)
Unknown
Thanks for handling my discuss. I think you need a reference for Lucky13 - see [1] where'll you'll find that. [1] http://www.isg.rhul.ac.uk/tls/Lucky13.html ---- old comments below, I didn't check them - The ABNF allows for infinite numbers of delays and infinitely large delays. Wouldn't it be better to limit both? - The fact that "a=duplication-delay: 50 100" means that the 2nd re-tx is 150 ms after the initial tx is only explained in the 2nd example and you never say that otherwise. That could lead to interop problems since my initial assumption would have been that the 2nd re-tx would be 100ms after the initial tx for the above example. I think you should say something about that in section 3. - What if the delay indicated is less than a packet, say if every packet has 20ms of media but 5ms is indicated in the SDP?
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-01-20)
Unknown
Thank you for addressing my concern. Within the new text, "Lucky13" does not have a reference and I think it needs one (or that second example in the sentence being removed).