Subject: [Mops] streaming-opcons-07 review

From: Chris Lemmons <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2021 12:02:57 -0700

Nits and observations:
§2.2 "handwidth" should be "bandwidth".
§2.6 "faiis" should be "fails".
§2.6 ISP acronym is used without expanding the first use for those
unfamiliar with it.
§2.7 IXP and VPN acronyms used without definition as well.

For the acronyms, ISP and VPN might be well known enough to avoid
spelling out, but IXP probably needs spelling out the first time. I
usually err on the side of spelling them out, though, to avoid
ambiguity.

§4.5.2 Does "goodput" need explanation or do we think readers will be
familiar with the term? Could a reference help here?
§4.6.2 "Many assumes" should be "Many assume" or "Many people assume".
§5 Most of the document uses "Adaptive BitRate", but here we use
"Adaptive Bitrate". We should be consistent with capitalization.
§5.2 "we have trusted the TCP protocol" reads oddly because the P
already stands for protocol. Perhaps just "we have trusted TCP"? Also
in the last paragraph with "Although TCP protocol behavior".
§5.3 "transport protocol behaviors that responds" should be "transport
protocol behaviors that respond".
§5.3 "something completely different" needs full stop.
§7.3 Traffic Control CDN has graduated Apache incubation. The new
address is https://trafficcontrol.apache.org/ .
§7.6.* Should most of these links be references? Or are just links ok?
I know with any kind of linking there's a risk of staleness, but these
are probably useful enough to provide, I'm just not sure exactly what
the right formatting should be.
§9 It's odd to say basically nothing in the "Security Issues" section.
We've got multiple sections (including all of section 6) that touch on
security and privacy implications of various kinds of behaviours in
the streaming media space. Maybe a sentence or two here that points to
the rest of the doc while acknowledging that since we're not defining
a new protocol, we're not creating new problems? Or maybe it's fine as
is. It just feels strange to me.

Procedural question: We have references to drafts in the document.
Does its publication need to be held until those references can be
resolved?

Relatedly, 7234 is very likely to be obsoleted by
draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-19 (which is in the RFC Editors queue) soon.
Should we update the reference in §2.4 assuming this document is
published after that?

And, of course, an apology for being so very late to review this. It's
a substantial document and it has a _lot_ of really valuable guidance.
Perhaps most valuable of all are the very well-collected references
that point the reader to a lot of other documents, organizations, and
initiatives. If we hammer out the last few details, I support this
draft.

---

From: "Ali C. Begen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2021 22:03:47 +0300

Thanks Chris.

I addressed all your comments at:
https://github.com/ietf-wg-mops/draft-ietf-mops-streaming-opcons/pull/93

I leave it to my esteemed coauthors to accept the PR ;) Any comments are
also welcome on the PR.

-acbegen

On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 10:03 PM Chris Lemmons <[email-masked]> wrote:

> --
> Mops mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mops
>