Robert,
I am finally getting an opportunity to make updates to the text.
I have responses below...
------ Original Message ------
From: "Robert Sparks" <rjsparks@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "General Area Review Team" <gen-art@xxxxxxxx>; "ietf@xxxxxxxx"
<ietf@xxxxxxxx>; draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos@xxxxxxxx
Sent: 3/31/2016 12:39:13 PM
Subject: GenArt LC review: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-15
<snip>
These are very small editorial suggestions:
The introduction says "seldom makes things worse".
Section 5 says "This is one of the cases ... can make things worse."
There are no other cases called out, leaving the implementer to guess
at what the other pitfalls are.
It would be better to tweak that text to be less vague. I suggest
changing the introduction to say "there is one case this draft
discusses. Other cases may possibly exist, but are expected to be rare"
or similar.
How about this:
There is one case this draft discusses where such marking does not
help, but it seldom makes things worse if packets are marked
appropriately. Other cases where marking does not help may possibly
exist, but are expected to be rare. There are some environments
where DSCP markings frequently help, though. These include:
The sentence "These code points are solely defaults." in the
introduction is terse, and I suspect it won't translate well. Consider
calling out what the consequences of that statement are more simply,
even if it takes more words.
How is this?
This document describes a
subset of DSCP code point values drawn from existing RFCs and
common usage for use with WebRTC applications. These code
points are intended to be the default values used by a WebRTC
application. While other values could be used, using a
non-default value may result in unexpected per-hop behavior.
It is RECOMMENDED that WebRTC applications use non-default
values
only in private networks that are configured to use different
values.
Paul