Re: [dccp] NiTs in: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dccp-problem-01.txt

[Eddie Kohler <kohler at cs.ucla.edu>]

Hi Gorry,

Thanks so much as usual!

On Aug 1, 2005, at 6:15 AM, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:

> I've just re-read the problem statement rev -01, it reads quite well.
>
> There seem to be a set of NiTs in the document. The comments below  
> relate to
> missing refs, definitions, etc, and may easily be fixed.
>
> Gorry
>
> -----
> Section 2.1:
> " This project aims to bring easy-to-use congestion control mechanisms
>     to applications that generate large or long-lived flows of
>     unreliable datagrams, such as RealAudio, Internet telephony, and
>     multiplayer games."
>
> - This "project" ---> I think this is the DCCP work?

"This project aims"  =>  "We aim"

> - Is there a specific reason why video over IP was not included (it is
> discussed later)?

Probably we should not list video over IP as according to some, there  
is no suitable CCID yet.

> ----
> Section 2.1, Top of page 8:
> " o In an interactive game or VR session,"
> - Define "VR" - Virtual Reality?

expanded

> ----
> Section 2.3:
> "RealPlayer" - No reference provided.

Removed reference (no other RFC on ietf.org refers to RealPlayer  
explicitly, why be the first)

> "RTSP" - Acronym not expanded & No defining document, refer to RFC.

Added RFC 2326

> "SIP" - Acronym not expanded & No defining document, refer to RFC.

Added RFC 3261 to first occurrence, which is actually in section 2.0.

> ----
> Section 2.4: para 1:
> " ECN capability"  - No defining document, refer to RFC.

Added RFC reference to first occurrence of "ECN", which is actually  
in section 2.0.

> ----
> Section 3.1.2: para 4:
> "CE" - define "Congestion Experienced" when *first* used.

Done.

> ----
> Section 3.2 point 2:
> It would be nice to include the acronym "(CM)" for congestion  
> manager, in
> case people search the document for this.

Done in Point 1.

> ----
> Section 3.3
>    "unreliable applications, to use an unreliable variant of SCTP  
> or a"
> - Define SCTP, and give reference tp RFC.

Done in the first paragraph

> -----
> Section 3.3.2
> "    candidates for a semi-reliable version of SCTP such as U-SCTP."
> - What is U-SCTP? (reference needed?)

Updated to PR-SCTP

> ----
> Section 5:
> "NATs and firewalls don't interact well with UDP"
> - Is there a reference that could be provided?

Not as far as I know, this is Mark Handley's point

> ----
>
> Character sequences >``< and >''< occur at several places in the  
> document.

Removed!

Eddie



>