Last Call Review of draft-ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc-06

Request Review of draft-ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2017-08-28
Requested 2017-08-14
Other Reviews Secdir Last Call review of -06 by Chris Lonvick (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -06 by Matthew Miller (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Zitao Wang
Review review-ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc-06-opsdir-lc-wang-2017-08-22
Posted at
Reviewed rev. 06 (document currently at 07)
Review result Has Nits
Draft last updated 2017-08-22
Review completed: 2017-08-22


Reviewer: Zitao Wang (Michael)

Review result: Has Nits


I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate’s ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

Document reviewed:  draft-ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc-06


When multiple congestion controlled RTP sessions traverse the same network bottleneck, combining their controls can improve the total on-the-wire behavior in terms of delay, loss and fairness.  This document describes such a method for flows that have the same sender, in a way that is as flexible and simple as possible while minimizing the amount of changes needed to existing RTP applications.  It specifies how to apply the method for the NADA congestion control algorithm, and provides suggestions on how to apply it to other congestion control algorithms.

I think the document make sense and is written very clear, except some small nits:

Page 1:     The first sentence: “When multiple congestion controlled RTP sessions...”.  

I suggest expanding the “RTP”, like Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP), since it first appear in the document.


Page 1:     The last sentence: “It specifies how to apply the method for the NADA congestion control...”.   
I suggest expanding the “NADA”, like Network-Assisted Dynamic Adaptation (NADA). The reason same to above item.


Page 3:     The first paragraph: “sometimes the rate is increased further, until packets are ECN-marked or dropped.” 
            I suggest adding a reference to help the readers understanding “ECN-marked”.

Page 3:     Suggest adding a term definition: “Flow State Identifiers (FSIs)” which be used in section 4 but not be introduced in the section 2 Definitions.


Page 11:    6.1 NADA -- " Network-Assisted Dynamic Adapation (NADA) [I-D.ietf-rmcat-nada] is a congestion control scheme for rtcweb." 

I suggest adding a reference or some sentence to help the readers understand the “rtcweb”.



A run of idnits revealed there were 0 error, 3 warning and 2 comments:

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  -- The document date (March 28, 2017) is 140 days in the past.  Is this
  -- Found something which looks like a code comment -- if you have code
     sections in the document, please surround them with '<CODE BEGINS>' and
     '<CODE ENDS>' lines.
  Checking references for intended status: Experimental
  == Outdated reference: A later version (-04) exists of
  == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of
  == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of
     Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 2 comments (--).
     Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
     the items above.
OPS-DIR mailing list