Thank you Warm regards
Gyan On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 12:36 PM Xiaoqing Zhu (xiaoqzhu) <xiaoq...@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi Gyan, > > Thanks a lot for your very thorough review of this draft, and for your > valuable comments. We have uploaded the revised version (-09) to address > some of the concerns and suggestions you've raised. > > Please also see our replies below inline, tagged [authors]. Let us know > if you have any further thoughts or comments __ > > Best Regards, > Xiaoqing, on behalf of all authors. > > > On 1/21/20, 3:46 PM, "Gyan Mishra via Datatracker" <nore...@ietf..org> > wrote: > > Reviewer: Gyan Mishra > Review result: Ready with Issues > > 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>. > > Reviewer: Gyan Mishra > Review result: Ready with Minor Issues > > Document: draft-ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests-08 > Reviewer: Gyan Mishra > Review Date: 2020-01-17 > IETF LC End Date: 2020-01-21 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: Ready, but with nits and minor issues that should be > addressed. > > Major issues: None > > Minor issues: This document describes test cases for evaluating > performance of > RTP congestion control algorithms over LTE & WIFI networks. > > Section 1 It is mentioned a number of instance where “wired” is > mentioned where > I believe “wireless” or “WIFI” is what is meant to be stated. Please > check. > > [authors] Thanks for raising this concern. We’ve doubled checked on the > usage of “wired” in all three instances in the introduction section, and > believe it is intended as such. Our intention was to contrast the > characteristics of wireless networks from those of wired networks, as a > motivation of the need for this draft. We have, however, taken the > opportunity to revise those sentences to make them less wordy. > > I would recommend to use WIFI to refer to local LAN WIFI and use > cellular to > refer to a mobile handset, and not use the term “wireless” as that > could be > confusing. > > [authors] We agree with the suggestion that it is preferable to refer > specifically to WiFi or cellular whenever possible and have mostly edited > out the word “wireless”. In a few places, however, it is rather cumbersome > to always say “cellular and WiFi networks” when our intention is to simply > contrast the difference between wireless and wired communication. We have > therefore stuck with the term “wireless” in those cases. > > I would recommend not using LTE to refer to Cellular from a general > mobile > handset point of view, since LTE refers to 4G and Cellular could be > any - > 2G,3G,4G,5G etc > > [authors] We agree with this proposed change. The text has been updated > accordingly with a few exceptions: a) mentioning LTE/5G as an example of > operational cellular network; b) pointing to the LTE simulator in NS-3; and > c) referencing the corresponding 3GPP standard documents. > > Section 3 This section also mentioned “wired” where I think the goal > of the > document is test cases of WIFI & Cellular and adding in wired does > confuse the > reader as we are talking about quality degradation issues with wireless > technologies - WIFI & Cellular. Please check the verbiage. > > [authors] Thanks for pointing this out. We have checked all three previous > usage of the word in this section and have eliminated the mention of it in > the introductory discussions. The remaining two uses, however, are needed > for describing the proposed test case topology so we left them as is. > > Section 3 In this sentence you mention 3G support of high bandwidth. > My > experience with 3G has not been very slow page loading and that > multimedia > would suffer. > > [authors] This is a fair complaint. To avoid controversy, we have revised > the sentence to now state: “… it is evident that only the more recent radio > technologies can support the high bandwidth requirements …” > > > Section 3 Bottom of page 5 it is mentioned that the combination of > multiple > access technologies such as one user has LTE connection and another > has Wi-Fi > connection is kept out of the scope of this document. Please explain > why as > the reader would believe it would be in scope as that is the main > topic. > > [authors] When some of the users are on LTE and some of the users are on > Wi-Fi, it is only interesting to investigate the test case when the > bottleneck of the system is on the wired hop. Whereas the main focus of > this draft is to evaluate how congestion control schemes interactive over > the wireless interface. We have added the following statement in the draft > to explain why it is out of scope: > > “It should be noted that the goal of the following test cases is > to evaluate the performance > of candidate algorithms over the radio interface of the cellular > network. Hence it is assumed > that the radio interface is the bottleneck link between the > communicating peers and that the core > network does not introduce any extra congestion along the path. > Consequently, this draft has kept > as out of scope the combination of multiple access technologies > involving both cellular and Wi-Fi users.” > > Section 3 Top of page 6 - I am wondering if there is a better > explanation of > why you need a test simulator due to unpredictable nature or cellular > other > than underground mines. > > [authors] The unpredictable nature of the cellular networks makes test > results unrepeatable. Therefore our recommendation of carrying out tests > using simulators. > > Section 3.1.1 Here the fixed user is on a wired LAN connected to > mobile user. > You mention wireless interface which makes me wonder is the fixed user > actually > a WIFI user connected to broadband WIFI router wired to the internet. > See in > quotes which makes me wonder "The fixed user is connected to the > Internet via > wired connection with sufficiently high bandwidth, for instance, 10 > Gbps, so > that the system is resource limited on the {wireless?} interface" > > > [authors] Thanks for raising this point of confusion. The proposed test > case comprise of both cellular users and fixed users. They share the wired > backhaul link with sufficiently high bandwidth. As such, the bottleneck of > the system is over the cellular radio access link. We have revised the > sentence as below to avoid further confusion: > > “… so that the system bottleneck is on the cellular radio access interface > … “ > > > Section 4.1 Please explain in why the home access link represents a > bottleneck > due to its bandwidth. It is not obvious as these days Gigabit and above > broadband speeds are available at home. > > > [authors] We agree that the scenario where the wired hop remains the > bottleneck is becoming less common. This subsection describes test cases to > reflect DSL-like home Internet access that's less common but still present > especially in other parts of the world. As acknowledged in this section, > these test cases are proposed mainly as a sanity check. Over time, we can > perhaps get rid of this section completely. > > Nits/editorial comments: > > Draft Date should to be updated. > > [authors] Done > > Section 3.1.2 1-B Antenna- [2D, 3D] should be defined > > [authors] The cited reference of the 3GPP test plan contains information > for the above terminology. For this round of revision we have not gathered > input from authors familiar with the cellular technology terminologies. We > will try to update the definition directly in the text in a later revision. > > Section 3.1.2 RTT [40, 150] , should define a unit millisecond > > [authors] Done. > Section 3.1.2 4. User Intensity, should define what the values in > brackets mean > and unit of measure. > > [authors] The cited reference of the 3GPP test plan contains information > for the above terminology. For this round of revision we have not gathered > input from authors familiar with the cellular technology terminologies. We > will try to update the definition directly in the text in a later revision. > > Section 3.1.2 7.2.a Media direction: Uplink and Downlink, should define > what is meant by Uplink and Downlink > > [authors] The definition has been provided in the second paragraph of > Section 3.1.1 as well as in the illustration in Fig. 1. > > Section 4.2.3 g N= [4, 8, 12, 16, 20], should define what N is and any > unit of measure > > [authors] The variables N and M indicate the number of real-time media > flows and competing TCP streams, respectively, as illustrated in Fig. 2. We > added a sentence in Sec. 4.1.1 to explicitly explain this > > _______________________________________________ > > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art > > > > > -- Gyan Mishra Network Engineering & Technology Verizon Silver Spring, MD 20904 Phone: 301 502-1347 Email: gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
