Original text:
consider the effects of network design decisions on application-level performance, with considerations for the impact on video delivery. <del> This document aims to provide a taxonomy of networking issues as they relate to quality of experience in internet video delivery.  The focus is on capturing characteristics of video delivery that have surprised network designers or transport experts without specific video expertise, since these highlight key differences between common </del>  assumptions in existing networking documents and observations of video delivery issues in practice. <del> Making specific recommendations for mitigating these issues is out of scope, though some existing mitigations are mentioned in passing. The intent is to provide a point of reference for future solution proposals to use in describing how new technologies address or avoid these existing observed problems. </del>  1.1. 1.1.2. <del> Contributions are solicited regarding issues and considerations that have an impact on media streaming operations. Please note that contributions may be merged and substantially edited, and as a reminder, please carefully consider the Note Well before contributing: https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/note-well/ [4] Contributions can be emailed to mops@ietf.org, submitted as issues to the issue tracker of the repository in venue, or emailed to the document authors at draft-ietf-mops-streaming-opcons@ietf.org. Contributors describing an issue not yet addressed in the draft are requested to provide the following information, where applicable: a suggested title or name for the issue a long-term pointer to the best reference describing the issue a short description of the nature of the issue and its impact on media quality of service, including: where in the network this issue has root causes who can detect this issue when it occurs an overview of the issue's known prevalence in practice.  pointers to write-ups of high-profile incidents are a plus. a list of known mitigation techniques, with (for each known mitigation): a name for the mitigation technique a long-term pointer to the best reference describing it a short description of the technique: what it does where in the network it operates an overview of the tradeoffs involved-how and why it's helpful, what it costs. supplemental information about the technique's deployment prevalence and status 1.1.3. </del> Presentations: IETF 105 BOF: <del> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G3YBVmn9Eo&t=47m21s [5] </del>  IETF 106 meeting: <del> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_k340xT2jM&t=7m23s [6] </del>  MOPS Interim Meeting 2020-04-15: <del> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QExiajdC0IY&t=10m25s [7] </del>  IETF 108 meeting: <del> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaRsk0y3O9k&t=2m48s [8] </del>  MOPS 2020-10-30 Interim meeting: <del> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDZKspv4LXw&t=17m15s [9] </del>  2. bitrate. Here are a few common resolutions used for video content, with <del> typical ranges of bitrate for the two most popular video codecs </del>  Encodings. 2.1.2. [3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mops/ <del> [4] https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/note-well/ [5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G3YBVmn9Eo&t=47m21s </del>  <del> [6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_k340xT2jM&t=7m23s </del>  <del> [7] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QExiajdC0IY&t=10m25s </del>  <del> [8] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaRsk0y3O9k&t=2m48s </del>  <del> [9] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDZKspv4LXw&t=17m15s </del> 

Reviewer comments:
Merged after discussion with NAME ...
This was a brillant ideq, and has worked in other groups, but I can't remember any contribution that was made using this template ...
We should probably talk about how to update This document aims to provide a taxonomy of networking issues as they relate to quality of experience in internet video delivery. The focus is on capturing characteristics of video delivery that have surprised network designers or transport experts without specific video expertise, since these highlight key differences between common assumptions in existing networking documents and observations of video delivery issues in practice. NAME might suggest this (but didn't put it in -05): This document focuses is on capturing characteristics of video delivery that have surprised network designers or transport experts without specific video expertise, since these highlight key differences between common assumptions in existing networking documents and observations of video delivery issues in practice. Thoughts from NAME or NAME
Sure, that works for me.

Revised text:
consider the effects of network design decisions on application-level performance, with considerations for the impact on video delivery.  <ins> This document examines networking issues as they relate to quality of experience in internet video delivery.  The focus is on capturing capturing characteristics of video delivery that have surprised network designers or transport experts without specific video expertise, since these highlight key differences between common </ins> assumptions in existing networking documents and observations of video delivery issues in practice.  <ins> Making specific recommendations on operational practices aimed at mitigating these issues is out of scope, though some existing mitigations are mentioned in passing.  The intent is to provide a point of reference for future solution proposals to use in describing how new technologies address or avoid these existing observed problems. </ins> 1.1. 1.1.2.  Presentations: IETF 105 BOF:  <ins> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G3YBVmn9Eo&t=47m21s [4] </ins> IETF 106 meeting:  <ins> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_k340xT2jM&t=7m23s [5] </ins> MOPS Interim Meeting 2020-04-15:  <ins> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QExiajdC0IY&t=10m25s [6] </ins> IETF 108 meeting:  <ins> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaRsk0y3O9k&t=2m48s [7] </ins> MOPS 2020-10-30 Interim meeting:  <ins> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDZKspv4LXw&t=17m15s [8] </ins> 2. bitrate. Here are a few common resolutions used for video content, with  <ins> typical ranges of bitrates for the two most popular video codecs </ins> Encodings. 2.1.2. [3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mops/  <ins> [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G3YBVmn9Eo&t=47m21s </ins>  <ins> [5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_k340xT2jM&t=7m23s </ins>  <ins> [6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QExiajdC0IY&t=10m25s </ins>  <ins> [7] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaRsk0y3O9k&t=2m48s </ins>  <ins> [8] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDZKspv4LXw&t=17m15s </ins>