Skip to main content

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