Hi, Xiaoqing, Thanks for addressing my comments. I am clear for this review. Sheng > -----Original Message----- > From: Xiaoqing Zhu (xiaoqzhu) [mailto:xiaoqzhu@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2019 12:22 AM > To: Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@xxxxxxxxxx>; ops-dir@xxxxxxxx > Cc: rmcat@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-rmcat-nada.all@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-rmcat-nada-12 > > Update: the revised draft (link below) has removed the extraneous reference of > draft-ietf-rmcat-video-traffic-model. > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rmcat-nada-13 > > Thanks again, Sheng, for your review on this draft. > > Best, > Xiaoqing > > On 9/3/19, 8:58 AM, "Xiaoqing Zhu (xiaoqzhu)" <xiaoqzhu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Thanks a lot for your review and for catching the glitch in the reference list. > Will fix that in the next revision. > > Best, > Xiaoqing > > > On 8/31/19, 3:16 AM, "Sheng Jiang via Datatracker" <noreply@xxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > Reviewer: Sheng Jiang > 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. > > This experimental document describes an experimental congestion > control scheme > called network-assisted dynamic adaptation (NADA). The sender > regulates its > sending rate based on either implicit or explicit congestion signaling. The > document has only described the mechanism and algorithms. This does > NOT define > any massage format, massage exchanging procedure, etc. therefore, it > is NOT a > traditional standard document which is mainly for inter-operation > purpose. > Based on the assumption that such document was also suitable to be > published as > a RFC, I think this document is clear and well-written. > > There are a small Nit: draft-ietf-rmcat-video-traffic-model (published as > RFC > 8593) has been defined as a reference, but not been quoted in the main > text. > > Reviewer: Sheng Jiang > Review result: Has NITs > > > > >
