Subject: [Mops] Comments on draft-ietf-mops-streaming-opscons-08

From: "Mishra, Sanjay" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2022 19:03:14 -0500

Opscon authors - I have submitted a shepherd write up for the document
earlier today. I have two follow up questions.

1. I am reconfirming that there are no IPR disclosures that should be made
but have not been made. But, please confirm once again.

2. I have some minor knits in the document. See below:

Comments:

Pg 6: remove "." between TCP and which.
Much of the focus of this document is on reliable media using HTTP
over TCP. which is widely used..."

Awkward transition between comma and start of another example.

"wide range of operating systems, is also used in a
wide variety of other applications, has been demonstrated to provide
acceptable performance over the open Internet, includes state of the
art standardized security mechanisms, and can make use of already deployed
caching infrastructure"

Consider rephrasing the start of the sentence, such as "This document also
briefly discusses..." (or the document also briefly touches on...)
"Some mentions of unreliable media delivery using RTP and other UDPbased
protocols appear in..."

it's -> it is (other places in the document)

sec 3.4 -> re-use of "popular" twice in a sentence
"One popular example is when popular streaming content..."
May be re-state -> "one relevant example is when popular streaming
content..."

sec 3.5 ->  "users consume more video and videos at
higher bitrates" reword?
"users consume more videos and at a higher bit rate"?

sec 3.6 -> '"throttle" these transfers, to mitigate the load..." Comma not
needed

sec 4.2 -> Reference to draft-pantos-hls-rfc8216bis will need update as
this is not an RFC yet

"While an LL-HLS client retrieves each chunk with a separate HTTP GET
request, an LL-DASH client ..." replace "an" -> "a"

sec 5.4 -> "Ads" -> prior to use of acronym suggest defining it when first
referencing the word advertisements.

sec 6.3 -> missing "an" before increasing -> "As noted in Section 6.2,
there is increasing interest...."

sec 7 -> comma at the end of the sentence can be removed -> "when senders
and receivers store it,"

Thank you
Sanjay

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2022 20:46:38 -0600

Hi, Sanjay,

On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 6:03 PM Mishra, Sanjay <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> earlier today.

Thanks for this.

> I have two follow up questions.
>

No IPR from me.

> 2. I have some minor knits in the document. See below:

I'm working on a PR now :-)

Best,

Spencer

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2022 21:20:40 -0600

Hi, Sanjay,

> 2. I have some minor knits in the document. See below:

Please take a look at
https://github.com/ietf-wg-mops/draft-ietf-mops-streaming-opcons/pull/96,
and let me know what you think.

I made most of these changes as suggested, and rephrased two or three. My
thoughts follow.

Best,

Spencer

> art standardized security mechanisms, and can make use of already deployed

I split this into a list of bullets. I don't know how anyone could have
parsed the sentence on first reading :-)

> sec 4.2 -> Reference to draft-pantos-hls-rfc8216bis will need update as

The RFC Editor will verify all of the references just before publication,
and makes sure they all exist, etc. They'll make that change automatically,
so I didn't do anything here.

> request, an LL-DASH client ..." replace "an" -> "a"

I wouldn't have caught this ^^^ in a million years.