Unclear text objectives

[GrumpyOldTroll]

from @michael-scharf 's review (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mops/eGGPYW2vytPsLwRBlJ38MezPFh0/)

This informational document surveys network and transport protocol issues that
affect quality of experience for streaming applications, in particular video.

The overview covers many topics across different technologies. Readers may only
be familiar with a subset of these topics and could therefore learn quite a bit
from this kind of tutorial.

Nonetheless, it remains somewhat unclear what the actual objective of some of
the text is. For some topics, quite a bit of technical background is provided,
but the discussion is not really comprehensive. In many sections, the document
neither derives technical challenges, nor system/protocol requirements, nor
practical usage guidance. It is just a kind of tutorial. Quite a bit of text
also presents ongoing IETF work, and an RFC with this scope may thus get
outdated soon.

[GrumpyOldTroll]

I think the "some of the text" with unclear objectives is covered in the other comments, so those got individual issues.

I'm not sure there's any text changes for this issue, just wanted to capture it in case there's any further discussion.

I think in most cases I'd think content that's "tutorial" without deriving system/protocol requirements, technical challenges, or usage guidance can be taken as troubleshooting suggestions for things to look into when the symptoms line up with what's described, the main intent being to give operators hints on useful topics for further digging. Does that need stating somewhere, maybe in the intro?

[acbegen]

In the end, this is an informational RFC, we are not going to boil the ocean and explain every problem video/media applications (could) have. It touches on the most important issues (admittedly based on the knowledge and experience of the co-authors and input from many individuals). Someone else may have a different list of topics, but again this is a moving target. We cannot keep this draft dragging for too long.
We already know that many things in this document will be outdated soon, hence, we have a "living" part of the document that is meant to be kept up to date to address the needs.
Overall, I don't think we have an action item for this issue unless there is a specific text change request.

[GrumpyOldTroll]

Having had no further discussion, I'm closing this on the theory that the other issues cover it. Anything we need should get a more specific issue opened.