Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-media-rtp-session-11

Request Review of draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-media-rtp-session
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 13)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-12-09
Requested 2015-11-25
Authors Magnus Westerlund , Colin Perkins , Jonathan Lennox
I-D last updated 2015-12-09
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -11 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -11 by Christian Huitema (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -11 by Warren "Ace" Kumari (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Meral Shirazipour
State Completed
Review review-ietf-avtcore-multi-media-rtp-session-11-genart-lc-shirazipour-2015-12-09
Reviewed revision 11 (document currently at 13)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2015-12-09

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team
(Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF
Chair. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before
 a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at


Document:  draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-media-rtp-session-12

Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour

Review Date: 2015-12-11

IETF LC End Date:  2015-12-09 (sorry for missed LC review-mistakenly reviewed
some other draft)

IESG Telechat date: 2015-12-17


This draft is ready to be published as Standards Track RFC but I have some

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:

-[Page 4], "Equal treatment of media" section.

While reading this paragraph the question comes to mind of if all media flows
get 'best effort' only or if all media flows could get e.g. 'Gold treatment',
or something in between...

It would be clearer to add a sentence to say how the treatment (QoS) is
specified and applied to all flows.

-[Page 7], "This specifications purpose"----->"This specification's purpose"

-[Page 8], "It is important to note that the RTP payload type is never used to
distinguish media streams."

It would be clearer to add this would be explained below. "As expalined below,

-[Page 9], "form a independent"--->"form an independent"

-[Page 11], "that FEC stream use"---->"that FEC stream uses"

-[Page 11,

"(e.g., if an original RTP

   session contains audio and video flows, for the associated FEC RTP

   session where to use the "audio/ulpfec" and "video/ulpfec" payload



This sentence may need revision, word "where" to be revised.

-[Page 11], "with a associated generic"---->"with an associated generic"

-[Page 11], ULP (uneven level protection) to spell out.

-[Page 12], "this requires each media type use" -----> "this requires each
media type to use"

-[Page 14], some references are expired. Should they remain cited?

[I-D.ietf-avtcore-multiplex-guidelines],  [I-D.lennox-payload-ulp-ssrc-mux]

Best Regards,



Meral Shirazipour