RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for Loss Concealment Metrics for Video Applications
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc-06
Yes
No Objection
(Alvaro Retana)
(Benoît Claise)
(Brian Haberman)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Jari Arkko)
(Kathleen Moriarty)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Terry Manderson)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
(was Discuss, Yes)
Yes
Yes
(2016-04-21)
Unknown
IPR issue has been resolved.
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2015-12-15 for -05)
Unknown
-- Section 7.3 -- There is no longer a "RAI" area, and <rai-ads@tools.ietf.org> is no longer an appropriate email address (for two reasons: these aliases have also been moved to @ietf.org). I suppose this should now be "ART Area Directors" and "<art-ads@ietf.org>". We should check this in other documents that come from the former APP and RAI areas, as well.
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-01-06 for -05)
Unknown
(Note that there was a post IETF LC IPR declaration. We should discuss whether we need to re-run the last call. I think Alissa is on top of this, so I did not make this a DISCUSS) Otherwise, I have a few minor comments: - 4: "The report block MUST be sent in conjunction with the information from the Measurement Information Block [RFC6776]. " "MUST be sent in conjunction" is ambiguous. I think you mean that, if the LC block is sent, the Measurement Information Block MUST also be sent. === Editorial=== - 1, 2nd paragraph: Please expand QoE on first mention. Also, I think there's a cut-paste or edit error in the last sentence: OLD: Evaluating error concealment is important in the circumstance in estimating the subjective impact of impairments. NEW: Evaluating error concealment is important for estimating the subjective impact of impairments. -4:, 1st paragraph: There are several instances of "this metric block" where the antecedent for "this" is not clear. I think they all refer to the loss concealment block. I suggest changing most or all instances of "this metric block" to "the loss concealment block."
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-01-07 for -05)
Unknown
scott bradner performed the opsdir review
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-01-07 for -05)
Unknown
... and I would be a Yes, except that I don't want to be a Yes while the sponsoring AD is still a Discuss!
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-01-06 for -05)
Unknown
I agree with Ben's comment about the IPR. If it helps, I'd be happy to hold a discuss to get that sorted.
Terry Manderson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown