Closed GrumpyOldTroll closed 2 years ago
I think chances for a consensus are more likely if we keep it simple, see my suggested text here.
I'll integrate ali's comments, turn this into a new pr, and pull it: https://github.com/ietf-wg-mops/draft-ietf-mops-streaming-opcons/commit/8942fbb771636194ab42bd29c15e65cb9e05a34b
PS: Came up again from @michael-scharf 's review (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mops/eGGPYW2vytPsLwRBlJ38MezPFh0/)
Section 4. Latency Considerations and Section 4.1. Ultra Low-Latency
I am surprised by the definition "ultra low-latency (less than 1 second)", as well as some of the other numbers. For other real-time communication use cases, "ultra low-latency" would probably imply a latency requirement of the order of one millisecond. For instance, isochronous traffic for motion control in industrial networks may require a latency of 1 ms, and such "ultra-low latency" requirements are discussed elsewhere, e.g., in the DetNet WG. The terminology in this section should be better explained to readers dealing with networked systems with much harder latency requirements. And a reference should be added for these definitions in the context of video streaming.
For example, see:
It might be worth thinking a bit about whether there's any worthwhile improvements we can make here before it's too late. As much as I don't want to chase a moving target, I also don't want to ship something that lacks consensus.