Linda, thank you for your review. I have entered a No Objection ballot for this document. Lars > On 2022-8-9, at 8:21, Linda Dunbar via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Linda Dunbar > Review result: Almost Ready > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-rmcat-rtp-cc-feedback-10 > > Reviewer: Linda Dunbar > Review Date: 2022-08-08 > IETF LC End Date: 2022-08-09 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: > This document discusses the types of congestion control feedback using the RTP > Control Protocol. The document analyzes the feedback packet sizes and content > for point-to-point Voice Telephony and point-to-point Conference call. > > Major issues: > Since most of today's conference bridges are multi-points to multi-points or at > least multi-points (users) to multi-servers, I think multi-points analysis > would be more useful. Will the author consider adding them? > > As for the Consideration of the RTCP feedback (Section 2), should you also > consider how far away the endpoints are? Will network congestion and distances > impact the RTCP feedback? > > Section 1 states, "It is also assumed that the congestion control feedback > mechanism in RFC8888, .. are available." Question: Is the Congestion Control > Feedback mechanism described in this document the same as in RRC 8888? What are > the key differences? > > Minor issues: > > Nits/editorial comments: > > Cheers, > Linda Dunbar > > > > -- > last-call mailing list > last-call@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
