IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-haptics-09
review-ietf-avtcore-rtp-haptics-09-opsdir-lc-wu-2025-11-25-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-haptics |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 14) | |
| Type | IETF Last Call Review | |
| Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
| Deadline | 2025-12-01 | |
| Requested | 2025-11-19 | |
| Requested by | Mohamed Boucadair | |
| Authors | Hyunsik Yang , Xavier de Foy | |
| I-D last updated | 2026-01-23 (Latest revision 2026-01-21) | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart IETF Last Call review of -09
by Christer Holmberg
(diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -09 by Bo Wu (diff) Artart IETF Last Call review of -09 by Bron Gondwana (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Bo Wu |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-haptics by Ops Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/nQ285CRttKUpfhxP0OMpSMBykz0 | |
| Reviewed revision | 09 (document currently at 14) | |
| Result | Has issues | |
| Completed | 2025-11-25 |
review-ietf-avtcore-rtp-haptics-09-opsdir-lc-wu-2025-11-25-00
Hi, I have been selected as the Operational Directorate (opsdir) reviewer for this Internet-Draft. While these comments are primarily for the Operations and Management Area Directors (Ops ADs), the authors should consider them alongside other feedback received. Document: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-haptics-09 Reviewer: Bo Wu Review Date: 2025-11-25 Intended Status: Standards Track --- Summary: Has Issues – the document covers congestion control and SDP protocol impact, but lacks the operator-oriented defaults, and verification procedures expected by RFC 5706bis. Major Issues None. Minor Issues: all editorial/clarity, no protocol changes required 1. Section 5.2 The 4-bit “L” (MIHS Layer) field has no default value stated. It would be helpful to specify. 2. Section 8 Congestion Control Considerations The text does not currently distinguish between controlled and best-effort network environments, nor does it describe how to monitor packet loss to confirm that haptic streams remain within an acceptable loss range; adding such guidance would be helpful. Nits 1. Abstract Expand “RTP” on first use and use consistent lower-case “p” in “RTP payload”. 2. Section 6.2 first paragraph “For the initial release of the specifications, the value is ‘2023’.” Does the value come from ISO/IEC 23090-31, the version seems '2024’. 4. Section 5.3 Figure 4 Expand on first use: “STAP = Single-Time Aggregation Packet, MTAP = Multi-Time Aggregation Packet.” Thanks, Bo