Last Call Review of draft-ietf-avtext-lrr-05
review-ietf-avtext-lrr-05-genart-lc-even-2017-05-31-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-avtext-lrr |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 07) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2017-06-08 | |
Requested | 2017-05-25 | |
Authors | Jonathan Lennox , Danny Hong , Justin Uberti , Stefan Holmer , Magnus Flodman | |
I-D last updated | 2017-05-31 | |
Completed reviews |
Secdir Last Call review of -05
by Tero Kivinen
(diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Fred Baker (diff) Genart Last Call review of -05 by Roni Even (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Roni Even |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-avtext-lrr by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 05 (document currently at 07) | |
Result | Ready w/issues | |
Completed | 2017-05-31 |
review-ietf-avtext-lrr-05-genart-lc-even-2017-05-31-00
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 treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-avtext-lrr-?? Reviewer: Roni Even Review Date: 2017-05-31 IETF LC End Date: 2017-06-08 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: The document is ready with issues for a standard track RFC Major issues: Minor issues: 1. Can you specify both TTID and TLID in the same FCI. 2. What is the meaning of value 0 for TTID and TLID - TID or LID =0 in frame marking draft means base layer if there is scalability. This relates to the previous question. 3. What would an FCI with both TTID and TLID equal 0 mean. Nits/editorial comments: 1. Section 3 "an Real-Time Transport Control Protocol" should be "a Real...". 2. In section 3 " [RFC5104](Section 3.5.1)" there is a link to section 3.5.1 but it does not work. 3. In section 3.2 "(see section Section 2.1)" section appears twice.