Subject: [tsvwg] Comments on draft-polk-tsvwg-rsvp-app-id-vv-profiles-03

From: ken carlberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:19:10 -0400

James,

at present, I just have just a few general and specific comments about the draft, some of which are aimed at different audiences.  To the (other) chair and the group, I'd like to advocate changing the disposition of the draft from individual contribution to a working group draft.  The document is very symbiotic to the existing working group draft <draft-ietf-mmusic-traffic-class-for-sdp-01> in MMUSIC, and  efforts that compliment or strengthen other work items are good things to have.  In addition, the document builds on existing work [rfc-2872] and provides more granular information to nodes along the path, which I feel is always a good thing.  Finally, the draft appears in a state where the foundation is solid, with only refinements that are needed -- which seems sufficient in changing status to a working group draft

as for some specific comments...

- at the end of the 1'st paragraph in Section 1, you state "An application profile defined by a sender may not be understood by the intermediaries or receiver in the same or different domain".  My impression is that its different domains that may not under the application profile, but that intermediaries *within the same domain* would understand the profile.  If I missed something, it would be helpful to expand on your original text.

- towards the end of section 2, you state that the specification "allows an RFC that defines a well known word or string to be a valid identifier".  The first question that comes to mind is who/what defines this well known word or string?  Is it done later in the draft, or does this come from some otehr draft/RFC or registry?  Its the "well known" part of the text that caught my eye.

- i'm not convinced in how you separated real-time interactive profiles in Section 3.2 and multimedia conferencing profiles in Section 3.3.  I say this because your brief description of each (which may be too brief) doesn't seem associate characteristics that are different from each other.  Rather, each grouping only separates types of applications.  in contrast, broadcast and streaming are distinguished by the size of buffers.  

cheers,

-ken