Ines, thanks for your review. I have entered a No Objection ballot and pointed to your review.
Alissa > On Jan 24, 2019, at 3:09 PM, Ines Robles > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Reviewer: Ines Robles > Review result: 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-video-traffic-model-06 > Reviewer: Ines Robles > Review Date: 2019-01-24 > IETF LC End Date: 2019-01-28 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: > > I believe the draft is technically good. This document is well written and > clear to understand. > > This document describes two reference video traffic models for evaluating RTP > congestion control algorithms. The first model statistically characterizes > the > behavior of a live video encoder in response to changing requests on target > video rate. The second model is trace-driven, and emulates the output of > actual encoded video frame sizes from a high-resolution test sequence. The > document describes also how both approaches can be combined into a hybrid > model. > > Additionally, The stand-alone traffic source module is available as an open > source implementation, which I think it is very nice. :) > > I did not find issues. I have some minor questions/suggestions. > > Major issues: Not found > > Minor issues: Not found > > Nits/editorial comments: > > - Page 14: correponding -> corresponding > > - steady state, sometimes appears as steady-state, it would be nice to unify > these terms. > > Some Questions/suggestions: > > 1- In Figure 1, would it be correct to add an input as a self-loop arrow > indicating "dummy video frames"? (As previously was an input "raw video > frames" > e.g. in version 4 ) > > 2- Would it be correct to add in: > > 2.1- Page 14: "...ongoing, steady-state behavior of a video..." => > "...ongoing, > steady-state behavior (fluctuation around a constant target rate) of a > video..."? [1] > > 2.2 - Page 8: "...is considered to be in a transient state...." => "...is > considered to be in a transient state (reaction to abrupt changes in target > rate)...."? [1] > > [1] Based in > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/slides-101-rmcat-rmcat-video-traffic-model-00 > - Slide 2 > > 3- Would it be correct to add in the Figure 3 something like?: > > - R_v > R_v_previous for transient state > > - R_v <= R_v_previous for steady state > > Thanks for this document, > > Ines. > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
