From nobody Wed Oct 1 00:14:16 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dart@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dart@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F8A91A874B; Wed, 1 Oct 2014 00:14:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.636 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.636 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ipiqg_NZfBkE; Wed, 1 Oct 2014 00:14:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tcmail13.telekom.de (tcmail13.telekom.de [80.149.113.165]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AAEE1A86FE; Wed, 1 Oct 2014 00:14:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from qdezc2.de.t-internal.com ([10.125.181.10]) by tcmail11.telekom.de with ESMTP; 01 Oct 2014 09:14:07 +0200 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,630,1406584800"; d="scan'208";a="143767759" Received: from he113470.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.93.128]) by qde0ps.de.t-internal.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 01 Oct 2014 09:14:07 +0200 Received: from HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM ([10.134.93.12]) by HE113470.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([::1]) with mapi; Wed, 1 Oct 2014 09:14:07 +0200 From: To: Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 09:14:05 +0200 Thread-Topic: Re: [Dart] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp-07.txt, Thread-Index: Ac/dR0lJrFOITrG3QFSp+wfMSN1Xbw== Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dart/zZn5bz4nkT5hFMCC8wHqjeol_FI Cc: dart@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dart] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp-07.txt, X-BeenThere: dart@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "\"DiffServ Applied to RTP Transports discussion list\"" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2014 07:14:13 -0000 Hi David, The draft is well written and I regard it as very helpful. There's one change I'd like to suggest: Section 3.1, list number 2. briefly explains AF. The section doesn't explic= itly mention that traffic carried by one of the three PHBs of an AF class a= re not reordered. This feature, avoiding reordering packets belonging to di= fferent PHBs of an AF class, is however a kind of punch line whenever AF is= referred to in later sections. So I'd welcome mentioning it in section 3.1= , list point 2.=20 ################# minor comments (no objection if ignored) ################= ############# Section 4. , second block. Why are I-frames marked AF41 and P-frames AF43 i= n the example? To me, AF42 for P makes more sense (or make it AF42 for I fr= ames). AF43 could be used for B-frames (which aren't mentioned in the text)= . Section 5.1 second block after the bullet pointed list ".making reordering very likely." Would "making reordering likely" be sufficient?=20 Section 5.1 There's at least one ECMP implementation I'm aware of which includes QoS bi= ts to calculate the load balancing hash value. It reorders packets of a flo= w using multiple classes, if they are spaced less than the resulting delay = difference. This is an exceptional implementation, the other solutions I'm = aware of do ignore QoS bits when calculating ECMP hash values. ECMP is a pr= oprietary feature, I think. And one editorial comment: Section 3., last bullet point and following section: the bullet point is fo= cused on Lower Effort PHB marked by CS 1 and the following section continue= s by discussing CS 1 issues more general. This discussion may be added to t= he bullet point (to me the discussion doesn't seem to be related to the fir= st bullet point). ######################################################## Sorry for being late with my review. Regards, Ruediger From nobody Wed Oct 1 15:54:14 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dart@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dart@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18D8C1A87D0; Wed, 1 Oct 2014 15:54:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.087 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.087 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vUv0c5k4r_3d; Wed, 1 Oct 2014 15:54:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailuogwhop.emc.com (mailuogwhop.emc.com [168.159.213.141]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 079A01A87D5; Wed, 1 Oct 2014 15:54:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from maildlpprd06.lss.emc.com (maildlpprd06.lss.emc.com [10.253.24.38]) by mailuogwprd02.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id s91Ms9Y9025965 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 1 Oct 2014 18:54:09 -0400 X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd02.lss.emc.com s91Ms9Y9025965 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=emc.com; s=jan2013; t=1412204049; bh=LhpUtWSAmbPpKHdeCeFX8DxPfH4=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=TzRNcBX0sPPGAjEeNcrJqWQDAz/qcGLCNA4fUpl3uU8SnEQu5qmu6z4aeE6k+uLjt 7n9/MFK1UJ/WTHYDvkKCmC1/kmE+PSNrVw8Vp+lwJDzPARhcVKP4hStKhd1jH4A53W iJnD3g3PUsUzNgD1ttKSCrsLMraN1S6+cA54JiVw= X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd02.lss.emc.com s91Ms9Y9025965 Received: from mailusrhubprd54.lss.emc.com (mailusrhubprd54.lss.emc.com [10.106.48.19]) by maildlpprd06.lss.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Wed, 1 Oct 2014 18:53:38 -0400 Received: from mxhub09.corp.emc.com (mxhub09.corp.emc.com [10.254.92.104]) by mailusrhubprd54.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id s91MrwCK023069 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 1 Oct 2014 18:53:59 -0400 Received: from MXHUB105.corp.emc.com (10.253.50.22) by mxhub09.corp.emc.com (10.254.92.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.327.1; Wed, 1 Oct 2014 18:53:58 -0400 Received: from MX104CL02.corp.emc.com ([169.254.8.131]) by MXHUB105.corp.emc.com ([10.253.50.22]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 1 Oct 2014 18:53:58 -0400 From: "Black, David" To: "Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de" Thread-Topic: [Dart] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp-07.txt Thread-Index: Ac/dypUYBYDu3jbzQ1+xP9yfrKj/gA== Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 22:53:57 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.238.45.98] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Sentrion-Hostname: mailusrhubprd54.lss.emc.com X-RSA-Classifications: public Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dart/AAa7c_zM0aNrsC5xo3EQy1a1CkY Cc: "Black, David" , "dart@ietf.org" , "ietf@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Dart] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp-07.txt X-BeenThere: dart@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "\"DiffServ Applied to RTP Transports discussion list\"" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2014 22:54:14 -0000 Hi Ruediger, > Sorry for being late with my review. No apology necessary - you have the honor of submitting the first IETF Last= Call comments on this draft. > There's one change I'd like to suggest: >=20 > Section 3.1, list number 2. briefly explains AF. The section doesn't > explicitly mention that traffic carried by one of the three PHBs of an AF > class are not reordered. This feature, avoiding reordering packets belong= ing > to different PHBs of an AF class, is however a kind of punch line wheneve= r AF > is referred to in later sections. So I'd welcome mentioning it in section= 3.1, > list point 2. Sure, that's a good suggestion - I'll do that. That absence of reordering concept is covered elsewhere in the draft, but it first shows up in Section= 5.1, so mentioning it earlier in Section 3.1 will help. On the minor comments, I'd just as soon not tinker with the example text in Section 4, our AD suggested emphasizing that point in Section 5.1 (but if other reviewers dislike "very", that word can be bit-bucketed), and the ECM= P implementation described in your comments is one that cannot claim to suppo= rt AF, as it does not meet the requirements of RFC 2597. It's a network opera= tor responsibility to not run AF across such an implementation; I think that so= rt of DiffServ operational concern is best covered elsewhere. My current inclination is not to make any changes for these minor comments. > And one editorial comment: >=20 > Section 3., last bullet point and following section: the bullet point is > focused on Lower Effort PHB marked by CS 1 and the following section cont= inues > by discussing CS 1 issues more general. This discussion may be added to t= he > bullet point (to me the discussion doesn't seem to be related to the firs= t > bullet point). That's a good catch - the paragraph after that CS1 bullet point mixes two concepts that ought to be teased apart and merged into the two foregoing bullets to improve clarity: - Expanding on the non-requirements for different class selector code point= s to provide service differentiation. This text should be merged into the first bullet. - Expanding on the problems with assuming that CS1 selects a Lower Effort service. This text should be merged into the second (CS1) bullet. Thanks, --David > -----Original Message----- > From: Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de [mailto:Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de] > Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2014 3:14 AM > To: Black, David > Cc: dart@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Dart] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp-07.txt, >=20 > Hi David, >=20 > The draft is well written and I regard it as very helpful. >=20 > There's one change I'd like to suggest: >=20 > Section 3.1, list number 2. briefly explains AF. The section doesn't > explicitly mention that traffic carried by one of the three PHBs of an AF > class are not reordered. This feature, avoiding reordering packets belong= ing > to different PHBs of an AF class, is however a kind of punch line wheneve= r AF > is referred to in later sections. So I'd welcome mentioning it in section= 3.1, > list point 2. >=20 > ################# minor comments (no objection if ignored) > ############################# >=20 > Section 4. , second block. Why are I-frames marked AF41 and P-frames AF43= in > the example? To me, AF42 for P makes more sense (or make it AF42 for I > frames). AF43 could be used for B-frames (which aren't mentioned in the t= ext). >=20 > Section 5.1 second block after the bullet pointed list >=20 > ".making reordering very likely." >=20 > Would "making reordering likely" be sufficient? >=20 > Section 5.1 >=20 > There's at least one ECMP implementation I'm aware of which includes QoS = bits > to calculate the load balancing hash value. It reorders packets of a flow > using multiple classes, if they are spaced less than the resulting delay > difference. This is an exceptional implementation, the other solutions I'= m > aware of do ignore QoS bits when calculating ECMP hash values. ECMP is a > proprietary feature, I think. >=20 > And one editorial comment: >=20 > Section 3., last bullet point and following section: the bullet point is > focused on Lower Effort PHB marked by CS 1 and the following section cont= inues > by discussing CS 1 issues more general. This discussion may be added to t= he > bullet point (to me the discussion doesn't seem to be related to the firs= t > bullet point). >=20 > ######################################################## >=20 > Sorry for being late with my review. >=20 > Regards, >=20 > Ruediger >=20 >=20 >=20 From nobody Wed Oct 8 21:22:46 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dart@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dart@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A83491A8F42 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 21:22:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.087 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.087 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4HNEOM8D1gAu for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 21:22:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailuogwhop.emc.com (mailuogwhop.emc.com [168.159.213.141]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9B4C1A8F3E for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 21:22:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from maildlpprd04.lss.emc.com (maildlpprd04.lss.emc.com [10.253.24.36]) by mailuogwprd02.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id s994MekT027872 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2014 00:22:40 -0400 X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd02.lss.emc.com s994MekT027872 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=emc.com; s=jan2013; t=1412828560; bh=aQqK7923XYqKhk6EePOA3U+O9Tw=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=UpHcj5Ln0blW0cA4sgG62NLt6Ml08ITQwVSjojogISoM3td/LAEsAm8eDeliEmKbo W76L+kC+ADrABmKCPvn5iitCHAjpMj8i6TU3kwmXQC3RjB7dp73XF5wBIj8WpNRgVq fBixc2ulYQCq1OOcThlkVbkc+5YA/6ihzfa8rU8Q= X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd02.lss.emc.com s994MekT027872 Received: from mailusrhubprd04.lss.emc.com (mailusrhubprd04.lss.emc.com [10.253.24.22]) by maildlpprd04.lss.emc.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2014 00:22:23 -0400 Received: from mxhub03.corp.emc.com (mxhub03.corp.emc.com [10.254.141.105]) by mailusrhubprd04.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id s994MVlv008042 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2014 00:22:31 -0400 Received: from MXHUB101.corp.emc.com (10.253.50.15) by mxhub03.corp.emc.com (10.254.141.105) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.327.1; Thu, 9 Oct 2014 00:22:30 -0400 Received: from MX104CL02.corp.emc.com ([169.254.8.131]) by MXHUB101.corp.emc.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 9 Oct 2014 00:22:31 -0400 From: "Black, David" To: "dart@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Add text OPS-Dir review of dscp-rtp draft ? Thread-Index: Ac/jeKBk5tz5OJbnR4u3SUEJtnCDBg== Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 04:22:29 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.96.45.116] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Sentrion-Hostname: mailusrhubprd04.lss.emc.com X-RSA-Classifications: public Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dart/smmyPDqlCihnQoNsXxLgDraxpPI Cc: "Black, David" Subject: [Dart] Add text OPS-Dir review of dscp-rtp draft ? X-BeenThere: dart@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "\"DiffServ Applied to RTP Transports discussion list\"" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 04:22:44 -0000 Fred Baker's OPS-Dir review of the dscp-rtp can be found here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ops-dir/current/msg00504.html I want to thank Fred for his positive opinion of the draft and ask the WG whether any of the descriptive text from this paragraph of Fred's review (which was intended primarily as background info for the OPS Directorate members) ought to be picked up by the draft: As noted in its introduction, "This memo covers the implications of thes= e DiffServ aspects for real-time network communication, including WebRTC traffic [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-overview]." The different "diffServ aspects" in question are the implications of running an application that aggressivel= y marks its traffic for different network treatment in a best effort netwo= rk - one in which traffic may be routinely reordered, duplicated, or lost i= n transit. If different DSCP marks result in different routing or the uses of different queues and therefore competing with different and potential= ly changing data flows ambient in the network, one would expect any such interactions to be exaggerated; for example, if multi-topology routing i= s used and some data flows take wildly different routes than others, one could readily imagine a packet in each data flow sent simultaneously arriving spaced tens or hundreds of milliseconds apart. While it is not referenced in the document, the term "real-time" as used here is defined in RFC 1633, and refers to an application that requires that the network make specific guarantees to it, whether in end to end delay, minimum delivery rate, or both. The term is generally understood to refer to voice and video services, but can also refer to telemetry or other traffic loads. My initial inclination is to pick up (in edited form) the text on the meani= ng of the term "real-time", including its reference to RFC 1633. Thoughts? Thanks, --David ---------------------------------------------------- David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA=A0 01748 +1 (508) 293-7953=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 FAX: +1 (508) 293-778= 6 david.black@emc.com=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 ---------------------------------------------------- From nobody Fri Oct 10 12:33:28 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dart@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dart@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F39461ACF02 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 12:33:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.686 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.686 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ioX4nssuw4l0 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 12:33:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 125071ACF05 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 12:33:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.23] (cpe-173-172-146-58.tx.res.rr.com [173.172.146.58]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.9/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s9AJX7jm055281 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 10 Oct 2014 14:33:10 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-173-172-146-58.tx.res.rr.com [173.172.146.58] claimed to be [10.0.1.23] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Ben Campbell In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 14:33:07 -0500 X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 434662387.57961-212cce0b52561fae86cd63bd38ad24b7 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <7B470CEC-149C-4933-909D-D9C149DF90B9@nostrum.com> References: To: "Black, David" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dart/TG1KHOKwQyrlzPf4rU39_lBDQ8E Cc: "dart@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Dart] Add text OPS-Dir review of dscp-rtp draft ? X-BeenThere: dart@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "\"DiffServ Applied to RTP Transports discussion list\"" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 19:33:27 -0000 Hi David, I agree in principle, but I am not sure I agree the usage of "real-time" = is precisely that of rfc1633. For example, the RAI area description = says: > The Real-Time Applications and Infrastructure (RAI) Area develops = protocols and architectures for delay-sensitive interpersonal = communications. Work in the RAI Area serves an industry whose = applications and services include voice and video over IP, instant = messaging, and presence. These applications and services are "real-time" = in the sense described in RFC 3550. >=20 Real-time applications as in 3550 sometimes, but not always, need = network guarantees as in 1633. (There's _lots_ of RTP running over = best-effort networks.) It might be more precise to say that we are talking about (or at least = charted to talk about) RFC 3550 applications that also qualify as = real-time according 1633, but that the concepts may also apply to other = applications that qualify as real-time as according to rfc1633. (I have a feeling we're putting too fine a point on this.) On Oct 8, 2014, at 11:22 PM, Black, David wrote: > Fred Baker's OPS-Dir review of the dscp-rtp can be found here: > = http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ops-dir/current/msg00504.html >=20 > I want to thank Fred for his positive opinion of the draft and ask the = WG > whether any of the descriptive text from this paragraph of Fred's = review > (which was intended primarily as background info for the OPS = Directorate > members) ought to be picked up by the draft: >=20 > As noted in its introduction, "This memo covers the implications of = these > DiffServ aspects for real-time network communication, including = WebRTC > traffic [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-overview]." The different "diffServ = aspects" in > question are the implications of running an application that = aggressively > marks its traffic for different network treatment in a best effort = network > - one in which traffic may be routinely reordered, duplicated, or = lost in > transit. If different DSCP marks result in different routing or the = uses > of different queues and therefore competing with different and = potentially > changing data flows ambient in the network, one would expect any = such > interactions to be exaggerated; for example, if multi-topology = routing is > used and some data flows take wildly different routes than others, = one > could readily imagine a packet in each data flow sent simultaneously > arriving spaced tens or hundreds of milliseconds apart. While it is = not > referenced in the document, the term "real-time" as used here is = defined > in RFC 1633, and refers to an application that requires that the = network > make specific guarantees to it, whether in end to end delay, minimum > delivery rate, or both. The term is generally understood to refer to > voice and video services, but can also refer to telemetry or other > traffic loads. >=20 > My initial inclination is to pick up (in edited form) the text on the = meaning > of the term "real-time", including its reference to RFC 1633. >=20 > Thoughts? >=20 > Thanks, > --David > ---------------------------------------------------- > David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer > EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 > +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 > david.black@emc.com Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 > ---------------------------------------------------- >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Dart mailing list > Dart@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dart From nobody Tue Oct 14 09:05:39 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dart@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dart@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0B451A8934; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 08:50:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.354 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.354 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kgU_LbEIl75I; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 08:50:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (raven.nostrum.com [69.55.229.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB6AD1A8791; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 08:50:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unnumerable.local ([173.64.248.98]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.9/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s9EFoS37042924 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK); Tue, 14 Oct 2014 10:50:31 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [173.64.248.98] claimed to be unnumerable.local Message-ID: <543D463F.4080403@nostrum.com> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 10:50:23 -0500 From: Robert Sparks User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: General Area Review Team , draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp.all@tools.ietf.org, "ietf@ietf.org" , dart@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dart/y1xeLHXieN1tVEPVqV0gD3R26uI X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 09:05:36 -0700 Subject: [Dart] Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp-07 X-BeenThere: dart@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "\"DiffServ Applied to RTP Transports discussion list\"" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 15:50:36 -0000 I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at . Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp-07 Reviewer: Robert Sparks Review Date: 14-Oct-2014 IETF LC End Date: 14-Oct-2014 IESG Telechat date: not yet scheduled for a telechat Summary: Ready with nits These are very small nits to consider. Please feel free to leave the existing text alone if these suggestions don't help. At the end of page 13, the sentence that starts "Transport protocol support for multiple"... is very long and hard to parse. I suspect it will be hard to translate. The action of changing the existing protocols is implied rather than explicit in the current wording. "current designs" is vague. I suggest this as a starting point: "Adding support for multiple QoS-based traffic classes within a single network 5-tuple to a transport protocol adds significant complexity compared to the current protocol definitions. For congestion-controlled transport protocols, network congestion information for each QoS-based traffic class would have to be disambiguated to allow congestion control to be managed separately for each such traffic class." Hopefully it can be made even simpler. In the first paragraph of 5.2, would "Such reordering may lead to unneeded retransmission, and spurious emission of retransmission control signals (such as NACK) in reliable delivery protocols (see Section 5.1)" work? From nobody Tue Oct 14 11:19:36 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dart@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dart@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 334A51ACD19; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 11:19:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.087 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.087 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QKYJopoRI0Dy; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 11:19:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailuogwhop.emc.com (mailuogwhop.emc.com [168.159.213.141]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB1281ACD1B; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 11:19:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from maildlpprd01.lss.emc.com (maildlpprd01.lss.emc.com [10.253.24.33]) by mailuogwprd01.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id s9EIJP35010450 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 14 Oct 2014 14:19:26 -0400 X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd01.lss.emc.com s9EIJP35010450 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=emc.com; s=jan2013; t=1413310767; bh=PkRJZTM2fINUCv3qAoxLgA5eASc=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=OOQHCc85S5CYMJC1IC1lf231sPy/IM5cD8fZ8PSx7Rc8R2JtpJfDyirp+apoTKs2p 7G8GAkNVyIQwPVlILcXYeczeHfB/lZZCcX+oUVE3uABnNnvnP8iI3DkXR9lexbXFTy I9UfhVpvePyYaeDprDrukJ8F+uWKwiySGL/arzJg= X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd01.lss.emc.com s9EIJP35010450 Received: from mailusrhubprd03.lss.emc.com (mailusrhubprd03.lss.emc.com [10.253.24.21]) by maildlpprd01.lss.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Tue, 14 Oct 2014 14:18:51 -0400 Received: from mxhub03.corp.emc.com (mxhub03.corp.emc.com [10.254.141.105]) by mailusrhubprd03.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id s9EIIwLm028190 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 14 Oct 2014 14:19:07 -0400 Received: from MXHUB102.corp.emc.com (10.253.58.15) by mxhub03.corp.emc.com (10.254.141.105) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.327.1; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 14:18:33 -0400 Received: from MX104CL02.corp.emc.com ([169.254.8.131]) by MXHUB102.corp.emc.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 14:18:33 -0400 From: "Black, David" To: Robert Sparks , General Area Review Team , "draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp.all@tools.ietf.org" , "ietf@ietf.org" , "dart@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp-07 Thread-Index: AQHP58alev+0+Vbxb0mYa208M50soJwv5ZiA Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 18:18:32 +0000 Message-ID: References: <543D463F.4080403@nostrum.com> In-Reply-To: <543D463F.4080403@nostrum.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.238.44.122] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Sentrion-Hostname: mailusrhubprd03.lss.emc.com X-RSA-Classifications: public Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dart/reyANdoDF8AaDzZ_V49FMz-lQMY Cc: "Black, David" Subject: Re: [Dart] Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp-07 X-BeenThere: dart@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "\"DiffServ Applied to RTP Transports discussion list\"" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 18:19:31 -0000 Um9iZXJ0LA0KDQpUaGFua3MgZm9yIHRoZSByZXZpZXcuDQoNCj4gQXQgdGhlIGVuZCBvZiBwYWdl IDEzLCB0aGUgc2VudGVuY2UgdGhhdCBzdGFydHMgIlRyYW5zcG9ydCBwcm90b2NvbA0KPiBzdXBw b3J0IGZvciBtdWx0aXBsZSIuLi4gaXMgdmVyeSBsb25nIGFuZCBoYXJkIHRvIHBhcnNlLiBJIHN1 c3BlY3QgaXQNCj4gd2lsbCBiZSBoYXJkIHRvIHRyYW5zbGF0ZS4gVGhlIGFjdGlvbiBvZiBjaGFu Z2luZyB0aGUgZXhpc3RpbmcgcHJvdG9jb2xzDQo+IGlzIGltcGxpZWQgcmF0aGVyIHRoYW4gZXhw bGljaXQgaW4gdGhlIGN1cnJlbnQgd29yZGluZy4gImN1cnJlbnQNCj4gZGVzaWducyIgaXMgdmFn dWUuIEkgc3VnZ2VzdCB0aGlzIGFzIGEgc3RhcnRpbmcgcG9pbnQ6ICJBZGRpbmcgc3VwcG9ydA0K PiBmb3IgbXVsdGlwbGUgUW9TLWJhc2VkIHRyYWZmaWMgY2xhc3NlcyB3aXRoaW4gYSBzaW5nbGUg bmV0d29yayA1LXR1cGxlDQo+IHRvIGEgdHJhbnNwb3J0IHByb3RvY29sIGFkZHMgc2lnbmlmaWNh bnQgY29tcGxleGl0eSBjb21wYXJlZCB0byB0aGUNCj4gY3VycmVudCBwcm90b2NvbCBkZWZpbml0 aW9ucy4gRm9yIGNvbmdlc3Rpb24tY29udHJvbGxlZCB0cmFuc3BvcnQNCj4gcHJvdG9jb2xzLCBu ZXR3b3JrIGNvbmdlc3Rpb24gaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gZm9yIGVhY2ggUW9TLWJhc2VkIHRyYWZmaWMN Cj4gY2xhc3Mgd291bGQgaGF2ZSB0byBiZSBkaXNhbWJpZ3VhdGVkIHRvIGFsbG93IGNvbmdlc3Rp b24gY29udHJvbCB0byBiZQ0KPiBtYW5hZ2VkIHNlcGFyYXRlbHkgZm9yIGVhY2ggc3VjaCB0cmFm ZmljIGNsYXNzLiIgSG9wZWZ1bGx5IGl0IGNhbiBiZQ0KPiBtYWRlIGV2ZW4gc2ltcGxlci4NCg0K SW5kZWVkLCB0aGF0IHNlbnRlbmNlIGlzIHByb2JsZW1hdGljLiAgSSd2ZSBlZGl0ZWQgdGhlIGVu dGlyZSBwYXJhZ3JhcGggZm9yDQpjbGFyaXR5LiAgSGVyZSdzIHRoZSBuZXcgdGV4dDoNCg0KV2hl biBQSEJzIHRoYXQgZW5hYmxlIHJlb3JkZXJpbmcgYXJlIG1peGVkIHdpdGhpbiBhIHNpbmdsZSBu ZXR3b3JrIDUtdHVwbGUsDQp0aGUgZWZmZWN0IGlzIHRvIG1peCBRb1MtYmFzZWQgdHJhZmZpYyBj bGFzc2VzIHdpdGhpbiB0aGUgc2NvcGUgb2YgYSBzaW5nbGUNCnRyYW5zcG9ydCBwcm90b2NvbCBj b25uZWN0aW9uIG9yIGFzc29jaWF0aW9uLiBBcyB0aGVzZSBRb1MtYmFzZWQgdHJhZmZpYw0KY2xh c3NlcyByZWNlaXZlIGRpZmZlcmVudCBuZXR3b3JrIFFvUyB0cmVhdG1lbnRzLCB0aGV5IHVzZSBk aWZmZXJlbnQgcG9vbHMNCm9mIG5ldHdvcmsgcmVzb3VyY2VzIGFuZCBoZW5jZSBtYXkgZXhoaWJp dCBkaWZmZXJlbnQgbGV2ZWxzIG9mIGNvbmdlc3Rpb24uDQpUaGUgcmVzdWx0IGZvciBjb25nZXN0 aW9uLWNvbnRyb2xsZWQgcHJvdG9jb2xzIGlzIHRoYXQgYSBzZXBhcmF0ZSBpbnN0YW5jZQ0Kb2Yg Y29uZ2VzdGlvbiBjb250cm9sIGZ1bmN0aW9uYWxpdHkgaXMgbmVlZGVkIHBlciBRb1MtYmFzZWQN CnRyYWZmaWMgY2xhc3MuICBDdXJyZW50IHRyYW5zcG9ydCBwcm90b2NvbHMgc3VwcG9ydCBvbmx5 IGEgc2luZ2xlIGluc3RhbmNlDQpvZiBjb25nZXN0aW9uIGNvbnRyb2wgZnVuY3Rpb25hbGl0eSBm b3IgYW4gZW50aXJlIGNvbm5lY3Rpb24gb3IgYXNzb2NpYXRpb247DQpleHRlbmRpbmcgdGhhdCBz dXBwb3J0IHRvIG11bHRpcGxlIGluc3RhbmNlcyB3b3VsZCBhZGQgc2lnbmlmaWNhbnQgcHJvdG9j b2wNCmNvbXBsZXhpdHkuICBUcmFmZmljIGluIGRpZmZlcmVudCBRb1MtYmFzZWQgY2xhc3NlcyBt YXkgdXNlIGRpZmZlcmVudCBwYXRocw0KdGhyb3VnaCB0aGUgbmV0d29yazsgdGhpcyBjb21wbGlj YXRlcyBwYXRoIGludGVncml0eSBjaGVja2luZyBpbiBjb25uZWN0aW9uLQ0Kb3IgYXNzb2NpYXRp b24tYmFzZWQgcHJvdG9jb2xzLCBhcyB0aG9zZSBwYXRocyBtYXkgZmFpbCBpbmRlcGVuZGVudGx5 Lg0KDQo+IEluIHRoZSBmaXJzdCBwYXJhZ3JhcGggb2YgNS4yLCB3b3VsZCAiU3VjaCByZW9yZGVy aW5nIG1heSBsZWFkIHRvDQo+IHVubmVlZGVkIHJldHJhbnNtaXNzaW9uLCBhbmQgc3B1cmlvdXMg ZW1pc3Npb24gb2YgcmV0cmFuc21pc3Npb24gY29udHJvbA0KPiBzaWduYWxzIChzdWNoIGFzIE5B Q0spIGluIHJlbGlhYmxlIGRlbGl2ZXJ5IHByb3RvY29scyAoc2VlIFNlY3Rpb24gNS4xKSINCj4g d29yaz8NCg0KWWVzLCBhbmQgSSd2ZSByZW1vdmVkICJlbWlzc2lvbiBvZiIgZnJvbSB0aGF0IHBy b3Bvc2VkIHRleHQuDQoNClRoYW5rcywNCi0tRGF2aWQNCg0KDQo+IC0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVz c2FnZS0tLS0tDQo+IEZyb206IFJvYmVydCBTcGFya3MgW21haWx0bzpyanNwYXJrc0Bub3N0cnVt LmNvbV0NCj4gU2VudDogVHVlc2RheSwgT2N0b2JlciAxNCwgMjAxNCAxMTo1MCBBTQ0KPiBUbzog R2VuZXJhbCBBcmVhIFJldmlldyBUZWFtOyBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWRhcnQtZHNjcC1ydHAuYWxsQHRv b2xzLmlldGYub3JnOw0KPiBpZXRmQGlldGYub3JnOyBkYXJ0QGlldGYub3JnDQo+IFN1YmplY3Q6 IEdlbi1hcnQgTEMgcmV2aWV3OiBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWRhcnQtZHNjcC1ydHAtMDcNCj4gDQo+IEkg YW0gdGhlIGFzc2lnbmVkIEdlbi1BUlQgcmV2aWV3ZXIgZm9yIHRoaXMgZHJhZnQuIEZvciBiYWNr Z3JvdW5kIG9uDQo+IEdlbi1BUlQsIHBsZWFzZSBzZWUgdGhlIEZBUSBhdA0KPiANCj4gPGh0dHA6 Ly93aWtpLnRvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnL2FyZWEvZ2VuL3RyYWMvd2lraS9HZW5BcnRmYXE+Lg0KPiAN Cj4gUGxlYXNlIHJlc29sdmUgdGhlc2UgY29tbWVudHMgYWxvbmcgd2l0aCBhbnkgb3RoZXIgTGFz dCBDYWxsIGNvbW1lbnRzDQo+IHlvdSBtYXkgcmVjZWl2ZS4NCj4gDQo+IERvY3VtZW50OiBkcmFm dC1pZXRmLWRhcnQtZHNjcC1ydHAtMDcNCj4gUmV2aWV3ZXI6IFJvYmVydCBTcGFya3MNCj4gUmV2 aWV3IERhdGU6IDE0LU9jdC0yMDE0DQo+IElFVEYgTEMgRW5kIERhdGU6IDE0LU9jdC0yMDE0DQo+ IElFU0cgVGVsZWNoYXQgZGF0ZTogbm90IHlldCBzY2hlZHVsZWQgZm9yIGEgdGVsZWNoYXQNCj4g DQo+IFN1bW1hcnk6IFJlYWR5IHdpdGggbml0cw0KPiANCj4gVGhlc2UgYXJlIHZlcnkgc21hbGwg bml0cyB0byBjb25zaWRlci4gUGxlYXNlIGZlZWwgZnJlZSB0byBsZWF2ZSB0aGUNCj4gZXhpc3Rp bmcgdGV4dCBhbG9uZSBpZiB0aGVzZSBzdWdnZXN0aW9ucyBkb24ndCBoZWxwLg0KPiANCj4gQXQg dGhlIGVuZCBvZiBwYWdlIDEzLCB0aGUgc2VudGVuY2UgdGhhdCBzdGFydHMgIlRyYW5zcG9ydCBw cm90b2NvbA0KPiBzdXBwb3J0IGZvciBtdWx0aXBsZSIuLi4gaXMgdmVyeSBsb25nIGFuZCBoYXJk IHRvIHBhcnNlLiBJIHN1c3BlY3QgaXQNCj4gd2lsbCBiZSBoYXJkIHRvIHRyYW5zbGF0ZS4gVGhl IGFjdGlvbiBvZiBjaGFuZ2luZyB0aGUgZXhpc3RpbmcgcHJvdG9jb2xzDQo+IGlzIGltcGxpZWQg cmF0aGVyIHRoYW4gZXhwbGljaXQgaW4gdGhlIGN1cnJlbnQgd29yZGluZy4gImN1cnJlbnQNCj4g ZGVzaWducyIgaXMgdmFndWUuIEkgc3VnZ2VzdCB0aGlzIGFzIGEgc3RhcnRpbmcgcG9pbnQ6ICJB ZGRpbmcgc3VwcG9ydA0KPiBmb3IgbXVsdGlwbGUgUW9TLWJhc2VkIHRyYWZmaWMgY2xhc3NlcyB3 aXRoaW4gYSBzaW5nbGUgbmV0d29yayA1LXR1cGxlDQo+IHRvIGEgdHJhbnNwb3J0IHByb3RvY29s IGFkZHMgc2lnbmlmaWNhbnQgY29tcGxleGl0eSBjb21wYXJlZCB0byB0aGUNCj4gY3VycmVudCBw cm90b2NvbCBkZWZpbml0aW9ucy4gRm9yIGNvbmdlc3Rpb24tY29udHJvbGxlZCB0cmFuc3BvcnQN Cj4gcHJvdG9jb2xzLCBuZXR3b3JrIGNvbmdlc3Rpb24gaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gZm9yIGVhY2ggUW9T LWJhc2VkIHRyYWZmaWMNCj4gY2xhc3Mgd291bGQgaGF2ZSB0byBiZSBkaXNhbWJpZ3VhdGVkIHRv IGFsbG93IGNvbmdlc3Rpb24gY29udHJvbCB0byBiZQ0KPiBtYW5hZ2VkIHNlcGFyYXRlbHkgZm9y IGVhY2ggc3VjaCB0cmFmZmljIGNsYXNzLiIgSG9wZWZ1bGx5IGl0IGNhbiBiZQ0KPiBtYWRlIGV2 ZW4gc2ltcGxlci4NCj4gDQo+IEluIHRoZSBmaXJzdCBwYXJhZ3JhcGggb2YgNS4yLCB3b3VsZCAi U3VjaCByZW9yZGVyaW5nIG1heSBsZWFkIHRvDQo+IHVubmVlZGVkIHJldHJhbnNtaXNzaW9uLCBh bmQgc3B1cmlvdXMgZW1pc3Npb24gb2YgcmV0cmFuc21pc3Npb24gY29udHJvbA0KPiBzaWduYWxz IChzdWNoIGFzIE5BQ0spIGluIHJlbGlhYmxlIGRlbGl2ZXJ5IHByb3RvY29scyAoc2VlIFNlY3Rp b24gNS4xKSINCj4gd29yaz8NCj4gDQo+IA0KDQo= From nobody Tue Oct 14 11:47:10 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dart@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dart@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 417641ACCE1; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 11:47:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.354 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.354 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MqR1x7G89sn9; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 11:47:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (raven.nostrum.com [69.55.229.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 224331ACDBC; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 11:47:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unnumerable.local ([173.64.248.98]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.9/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s9EIkw6S061032 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK); Tue, 14 Oct 2014 13:46:58 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [173.64.248.98] claimed to be unnumerable.local Message-ID: <543D6F9C.40201@nostrum.com> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 13:46:52 -0500 From: Robert Sparks User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Black, David" , General Area Review Team , "draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp.all@tools.ietf.org" , "ietf@ietf.org" , "dart@ietf.org" References: <543D463F.4080403@nostrum.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dart/rSdl_Ec4waVZ-jFEGyP_GhKf63Q Subject: Re: [Dart] Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp-07 X-BeenThere: dart@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "\"DiffServ Applied to RTP Transports discussion list\"" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 18:47:05 -0000 On 10/14/14 1:18 PM, Black, David wrote: > Robert, > > Thanks for the review. > >> At the end of page 13, the sentence that starts "Transport protocol >> support for multiple"... is very long and hard to parse. I suspect it >> will be hard to translate. The action of changing the existing protocols >> is implied rather than explicit in the current wording. "current >> designs" is vague. I suggest this as a starting point: "Adding support >> for multiple QoS-based traffic classes within a single network 5-tuple >> to a transport protocol adds significant complexity compared to the >> current protocol definitions. For congestion-controlled transport >> protocols, network congestion information for each QoS-based traffic >> class would have to be disambiguated to allow congestion control to be >> managed separately for each such traffic class." Hopefully it can be >> made even simpler. > Indeed, that sentence is problematic. I've edited the entire paragraph for > clarity. Here's the new text: > > When PHBs that enable reordering are mixed within a single network 5-tuple, > the effect is to mix QoS-based traffic classes within the scope of a single > transport protocol connection or association. As these QoS-based traffic > classes receive different network QoS treatments, they use different pools > of network resources and hence may exhibit different levels of congestion. > The result for congestion-controlled protocols is that a separate instance > of congestion control functionality is needed per QoS-based > traffic class. Current transport protocols support only a single instance > of congestion control functionality for an entire connection or association; > extending that support to multiple instances would add significant protocol > complexity. Traffic in different QoS-based classes may use different paths > through the network; this complicates path integrity checking in connection- > or association-based protocols, as those paths may fail independently. That's great. Thanks! > >> In the first paragraph of 5.2, would "Such reordering may lead to >> unneeded retransmission, and spurious emission of retransmission control >> signals (such as NACK) in reliable delivery protocols (see Section 5.1)" >> work? > Yes, and I've removed "emission of" from that proposed text. Ack > > Thanks, > --David > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Robert Sparks [mailto:rjsparks@nostrum.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 11:50 AM >> To: General Area Review Team; draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp.all@tools.ietf.org; >> ietf@ietf.org; dart@ietf.org >> Subject: Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp-07 >> >> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on >> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at >> >> . >> >> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments >> you may receive. >> >> Document: draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp-07 >> Reviewer: Robert Sparks >> Review Date: 14-Oct-2014 >> IETF LC End Date: 14-Oct-2014 >> IESG Telechat date: not yet scheduled for a telechat >> >> Summary: Ready with nits >> >> These are very small nits to consider. Please feel free to leave the >> existing text alone if these suggestions don't help. >> >> At the end of page 13, the sentence that starts "Transport protocol >> support for multiple"... is very long and hard to parse. I suspect it >> will be hard to translate. The action of changing the existing protocols >> is implied rather than explicit in the current wording. "current >> designs" is vague. I suggest this as a starting point: "Adding support >> for multiple QoS-based traffic classes within a single network 5-tuple >> to a transport protocol adds significant complexity compared to the >> current protocol definitions. For congestion-controlled transport >> protocols, network congestion information for each QoS-based traffic >> class would have to be disambiguated to allow congestion control to be >> managed separately for each such traffic class." Hopefully it can be >> made even simpler. >> >> In the first paragraph of 5.2, would "Such reordering may lead to >> unneeded retransmission, and spurious emission of retransmission control >> signals (such as NACK) in reliable delivery protocols (see Section 5.1)" >> work? >> >> From nobody Thu Oct 16 11:45:30 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dart@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dart@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 063151A01D6; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 11:45:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3qU_BMBd5B8S; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 11:45:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97EBD1A01FA; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 11:45:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.6.4 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20141016184520.2743.52303.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 11:45:20 -0700 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dart/WTWFlifSbaYK5eciCDNC4dK0Oaw Cc: dart@ietf.org Subject: [Dart] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp-08.txt X-BeenThere: dart@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: "\"DiffServ Applied to RTP Transports discussion list\"" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 18:45:23 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the DiffServ Applied to Real-time Transports Working Group of the IETF. Title : Differentiated Services (DiffServ) and Real-time Communication Authors : David Black Paul Jones Filename : draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp-08.txt Pages : 26 Date : 2014-10-16 Abstract: This memo describes the interaction between Differentiated Services (DiffServ) network quality of service (QoS) functionality and real- time network communication, including communication based on the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP). DiffServ is based on network nodes applying different forwarding treatments to packets whose IP headers are marked with different DiffServ Code Points (DSCPs). WebRTC applications, as well as some conferencing applications, have begun using the Session Description Protocol (SDP) bundle negotiation mechanism to send multiple traffic streams with different QoS requirements using the same network 5-tuple. The results of using multiple DSCPs to obtain different QoS treatments within a single network 5-tuple (e.g., reordering) have transport protocol interactions, particularly with congestion control functionality. In addition, DSCP markings may be changed or removed between the traffic source and destination. This memo covers the implications of these DiffServ aspects for real-time network communication, including WebRTC. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp-08 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp-08 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Thu Oct 16 12:09:49 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dart@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dart@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9ADD1A8707 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 12:09:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.311 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uz5-xdOcQxXk for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 12:09:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailuogwdur.emc.com (mailuogwdur.emc.com [128.221.224.79]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58C261A01D6 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 12:09:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from maildlpprd53.lss.emc.com (maildlpprd53.lss.emc.com [10.106.48.157]) by mailuogwprd53.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id s9GJ9ZB5015864 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:09:35 -0400 X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd53.lss.emc.com s9GJ9ZB5015864 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=emc.com; s=jan2013; t=1413486575; bh=omcrGKU1HM2S+Yg+SO73zLXDldw=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=CqlV6EA8iUibdVOsiZyWeYrNXe7pwI7XnQ8USH92oyQugppXNHPUCb8M+1tmHxIAN YS4L+tJzbwC6xio2DRE0m4xpDbHbBRGyI/VVyTVg0oaXoHi8MhawhO4VzCgzYrp1rv czSAdiPlgWPTU+md0D64PcAB4RudgLA6cNo4IIU4= X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd53.lss.emc.com s9GJ9ZB5015864 Received: from mailusrhubprd02.lss.emc.com (mailusrhubprd02.lss.emc.com [10.253.24.20]) by maildlpprd53.lss.emc.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:08:49 -0400 Received: from mxhub27.corp.emc.com (mxhub27.corp.emc.com [10.254.110.183]) by mailusrhubprd02.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id s9GJ9I9f007475 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:09:18 -0400 Received: from MXHUB106.corp.emc.com (10.253.58.23) by mxhub27.corp.emc.com (10.254.110.183) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.327.1; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:09:18 -0400 Received: from MX104CL02.corp.emc.com ([169.254.8.131]) by MXHUB106.corp.emc.com ([10.253.58.23]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:09:18 -0400 From: "Black, David" To: "dart@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Dart] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp-08.txt Thread-Index: AQHP6XFdC2ivRyoN8kmG/zfBjb4p2ZwzFQxg Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 19:09:16 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20141016184520.2743.52303.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20141016184520.2743.52303.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.238.44.122] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Sentrion-Hostname: mailusrhubprd02.lss.emc.com X-RSA-Classifications: DLM_1, public Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dart/k5en7RDX5H24sRc-J-ZC-8lVDdU Subject: Re: [Dart] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp-08.txt X-BeenThere: dart@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "\"DiffServ Applied to RTP Transports discussion list\"" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 19:09:45 -0000 The -08 version of this draft responds to all of the IETF Last Call comments, which were primarily from the Gen-ART, OPS-Dir and secdir reviews. The changes from -07 are almost entirely editorial in nature, although a few more informative references were added (there are now about 4 pages of references in toto ...). Enjoy, --David > -----Original Message----- > From: Dart [mailto:dart-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of internet- > drafts@ietf.org > Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 2:45 PM > To: i-d-announce@ietf.org > Cc: dart@ietf.org > Subject: [Dart] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp-08.txt >=20 >=20 > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the DiffServ Applied to Real-time Transport= s > Working Group of the IETF. >=20 > Title : Differentiated Services (DiffServ) and Real-tim= e > Communication > Authors : David Black > Paul Jones > Filename : draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp-08.txt > Pages : 26 > Date : 2014-10-16 >=20 > Abstract: > This memo describes the interaction between Differentiated Services > (DiffServ) network quality of service (QoS) functionality and real- > time network communication, including communication based on the > Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP). DiffServ is based on network > nodes applying different forwarding treatments to packets whose IP > headers are marked with different DiffServ Code Points (DSCPs). > WebRTC applications, as well as some conferencing applications, have > begun using the Session Description Protocol (SDP) bundle negotiation > mechanism to send multiple traffic streams with different QoS > requirements using the same network 5-tuple. The results of using > multiple DSCPs to obtain different QoS treatments within a single > network 5-tuple (e.g., reordering) have transport protocol > interactions, particularly with congestion control functionality. In > addition, DSCP markings may be changed or removed between the traffic > source and destination. This memo covers the implications of these > DiffServ aspects for real-time network communication, including > WebRTC. >=20 >=20 > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp/ >=20 > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp-08 >=20 > A diff from the previous version is available at: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp-08 >=20 >=20 > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submiss= ion > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >=20 > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Dart mailing list > Dart@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dart From nobody Thu Oct 23 13:51:35 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dart@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dart@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 779721AD44B; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 13:51:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NpJNNcdIZVjf; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 13:51:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 213E51AD430; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 13:51:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unnumerable.local ([173.64.248.98]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.9/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s9NKpS24011395 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 23 Oct 2014 15:51:28 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [173.64.248.98] claimed to be unnumerable.local Message-ID: <54496A4B.5060101@nostrum.com> Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 15:51:23 -0500 From: Robert Sparks User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: General Area Review Team , "draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp.all@tools.ietf.org" , "dart@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dart/kKIolmpYDPz2i9Pt_pFEHYO4ENA Subject: [Dart] Gen-art telechat review: draft-ietf-dart-dscp-08 X-BeenThere: dart@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "\"DiffServ Applied to RTP Transports discussion list\"" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 20:51:30 -0000 I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-dart-dscp-08 Reviewer: Robert Sparks Review Date: 23-Oct-14 IETF LC End Date: (past) IESG Telechat date: 30-Oct-14 Summary: Ready for publication as an Informational RFC From nobody Thu Oct 30 06:31:21 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dart@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dart@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 665221A004E; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 05:37:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TzzWPCCl-P3K; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 05:37:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AEED1A003A; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 05:37:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF1A52CCCF; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 14:37:20 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VJRyO-Aw3iCb; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 14:37:20 +0200 (EET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 608DF2CC4D; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 14:37:20 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_EC1D955D-F95C-482A-9467-D615837AE11E"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Jari Arkko In-Reply-To: <543D6F9C.40201@nostrum.com> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 14:37:19 +0200 Message-Id: <7319C38C-E03F-47C5-A7FC-E9732BBEF31B@piuha.net> References: <543D463F.4080403@nostrum.com> <543D6F9C.40201@nostrum.com> To: Robert Sparks X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dart/zz05ww6g4NbsyMWgWIC82wQaWTs X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 06:31:09 -0700 Cc: "draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp.all@tools.ietf.org" , "Black, David" , "dart@ietf.org" , General Area Review Team , "ietf@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Dart] Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp-07 X-BeenThere: dart@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "\"DiffServ Applied to RTP Transports discussion list\"" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:37:23 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_EC1D955D-F95C-482A-9467-D615837AE11E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Robert - thank you very much for the review. And thanks David for taking = the suggestions into account. I have balloted no-objection for this draft in today=92s IESG telechat. Jari --Apple-Mail=_EC1D955D-F95C-482A-9467-D615837AE11E Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJUUjD/AAoJEM80gCTQU46qg1EP/1qEeXGOq0Lv8At6qgA9IN4t IxUlWA/7xiMGXtZTvuylFQw81jI+HAj5nlcUrLHQxhgnk4Yeld/GTGBgC8QmEi10 rupUsA1uulzylZM7f/dcXUxny6L+urR7Jd3+ftkZj/EtTyFEyV2UmJ6VZMcFThbB eXDn33F+2YcGNWOuVQha3hN8tVNoQ6aEhgu6p3/K2RFi00x1fWJpfJIL2hdKnvmW thgsZlz2U69Dh3ACEbzm/DheQQPn5HuB59D6CRyFlImaeggT4V7OwMyQS80v8VXo jayIGQITINOxJLzVlMaeUGVuzMxg8xkrNj0b0SDhYZcOoPf/eFK+79L94MojtQMI ZCUhSDaYVy/mn6dk2TwyFGO/C6WNiD2Ouvvos5kg0C2+4KwBz42ifwUqUQUu58Uo BZiSFbovnj7I8n+lrGcWgBAfueYcCV/slMvjVHRrrKfvNh/AnZL+EfaLC67rvDFI GDFykIQX/eDRhF0MdfnpmGLd50ixK8IHYMPX+bDvo3ZcLNEMk18I2Ehi67Hh6Eta +KvzfGUN8u8b59lKlQ+QDtmQsy1gIXL53fr2U5RAXRodUII0Zps0LvYLedWGkURd 3lTbr5bqePNumBuddvOD8ri9LqqFjBggk6LWHSUhi7/fp4T2K+CHoABXi6ZVzZHQ Bk7lc8oxDVa8Jla+fSxc =tmBh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_EC1D955D-F95C-482A-9467-D615837AE11E--