Ballot for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
IPR issue has been resolved.
-- 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.
(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."
scott bradner performed the opsdir review
... and I would be a Yes, except that I don't want to be a Yes while the sponsoring AD is still a Discuss!
I agree with Ben's comment about the IPR. If it helps, I'd be happy to hold a discuss to get that sorted.