Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-avtext-avpf-ccm-layered-03

Request Review of draft-ietf-avtext-avpf-ccm-layered
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 04)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2016-12-14
Requested 2016-11-23
Authors Stephan Wenger , Jonathan Lennox , Bo Burman , Magnus Westerlund
I-D last updated 2017-01-03
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -03 by Vijay K. Gurbani (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Vijay K. Gurbani
State Completed
Review review-ietf-avtext-avpf-ccm-layered-03-genart-lc-gurbani-2017-01-03
Reviewed revision 03 (document currently at 04)
Result Ready w/issues
Completed 2017-01-03
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-avtext-avpf-ccm-layered-03
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: Nov-30-2016
IETF LC End Date: Dec-14-2016
IESG Telechat date: Unknown

This document is ready as an Proposed Standard (modulo a couple of
minor and nit comments below).

Major: 0
Minor: 1
Nits: 2

- S5, S6: This is a standards-track document.  As such, I am not sure
  what the "(Informative)" moniker implies in the section heading.
  Since there is no RFC-2119 type of exhortations in the sections, it
  seems reasonable to simply remove the "(Informative)" tag in the
  section headings without loosing any material context while reading
  the paragraph.  The presence of the tag renders ambiguity.

- S1: s/which the FIR request/that the FIR request/
- S1: In this section and rest of the document, you sometimes use FIR
  and at other times Full Intra Request.  Once you have defined Full
  Intra Request as FIR, I would suggest using FIR for consistency.


- vijay
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Nokia Networks
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: /
Web:  | Calendar: