Last Call Review of draft-ietf-avtext-rams-scenarios-
review-ietf-avtext-rams-scenarios-genart-lc-gurbani-2012-04-27-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-avtext-rams-scenarios
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2012-05-08
Requested 2012-03-22
Authors Ali Begen
Draft last updated 2012-04-27
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -?? by Vijay Gurbani
Secdir Telechat review of -?? by Alexey Melnikov
Assignment Reviewer Vijay Gurbani
State Completed
Review review-ietf-avtext-rams-scenarios-genart-lc-gurbani-2012-04-27
Review completed: 2012-04-27

Review
review-ietf-avtext-rams-scenarios-genart-lc-gurbani-2012-04-27

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

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

Document: draft-ietf-avtext-rams-scenarios-04
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: Apr-27-2012
IETF LC End Date: Not known
IESG Telechat date: May-10-2012

Summary: This draft is ready as an Informational.

Major issues: 0
Minor issues: 0
Nits/editorial comments: 5

Nits/editorials:

- S1: For readability, I would suggest the following change:

  OLD:
  ... In scenarios where multiple RAMS sessions, each initiated
   with an individual RAMS Request message to a different feedback
   target, will be simultaneously run by an RTP receiver, they need to
   be coordinated.

   NEW:
   ... Close coordination is required for multiple RAMS sessions
   simultaneously started by an RTP server, where each session
   is initiated with an individual RAMS Request message to a different
   feedback target.

- S2, second line: the use of the word "somewhow" just seems
 wishy-washy here.  Instead, I think it is better to say "... that
 are in some manner associated with each other."

- S3.1: Instead of saying "We run ..." and "we want to ..." better
 to say that "An individual RAMS sesson is run for each of the RTP
 streams that requires rapid acquisition."

- S3.4, same problem: instead of saying "we have only one RTP
 stream..." better to say "there is only one RTP stream ..."

- S6: Probably better to say that there are no new security attacks
 made possible by the this draft, however, security considerations of
 RFC6285 still apply.  Or something to that effect.

Thanks!	

- vijay
--
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: vkg at {bell-labs.com,acm.org} / vijay.gurbani at alcatel-lucent.com
Web:   

http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/