Subject: [video-codec] Mirja Kühlewind's Abstain on draft-ietf-netvc-requirements-09: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2019 12:31:49 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netvc-requirements-09: Abstain

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netvc-requirements/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I would expect that this document also mentions the interaction with congestion
control, e.g. see RMCAT. All I can find is this, which seems very high level:
"3.1.7. Specifications providing integration with system and delivery
   layers should be developed."

Further the security consideration section is rather brief while it actually
does mention security requirements. In a requirement document I would have
expected that these requirements are clearly spelled out and explained, as well
as risks/attacks are discussed.

And why is section 4 in this document and not in draft-ietf-netvc-testing?

Another minor comment:
Sec 2: "for instance, wired channels are considerably more error-
   free than wireless channels and therefore require different QoS
   approaches."
I don't think this is generally true as most mobile networks repair losses on
the lower layers.