Subject: [payload] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-payload-rtp-ancillary-10: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 01:58:43 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-payload-rtp-ancillary-10: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-payload-rtp-ancillary/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

One comment at the end of section 2:
"One millisecond is a reasonable upper bound for the
   amount of time between when an ANC data packet becomes available to a
   sender and the emission of an RTP payload containing that ANC data
   packet."
While it makes sense to send out the packet as soon as possible, I'm not sure
what this sentence gives you. I don't think you can guanrantee 1ms as there
might be additional delays on the NIC and as such I don't think there are any
actions that could follow based on this value. To avoid that anybody is taking
this as a hard requirement, I would maybe rather just remove this note.