Last Call Review of draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1-17
review-ietf-cellar-ffv1-17-opsdir-lc-wu-2020-09-06-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1 |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 20) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
| Deadline | 2020-09-07 | |
| Requested | 2020-08-24 | |
| Authors | Michael Niedermayer , Dave Rice , Jérôme Martinez | |
| I-D last updated | 2020-09-06 | |
| Completed reviews |
Secdir Early review of -02
by Liang Xia
(diff)
Genart Early review of -03 by Matthew A. Miller (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -16 by Liang Xia (diff) Genart Last Call review of -16 by Joel M. Halpern (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -17 by Qin Wu (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Qin Wu |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1 by Ops Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/2Prcqjj7hulNjIJWMeTz3Xi5thQ | |
| Reviewed revision | 17 (document currently at 20) | |
| Result | Ready | |
| Completed | 2020-09-06 |
review-ietf-cellar-ffv1-17-opsdir-lc-wu-2020-09-06-00
I have reviewed this document on behalf of the Operations and Management Directorate. Four questions need to be clarified： 1. why document v0,v1,v3 in draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1 as informational and document v4 in draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1-v4-14 as standard track? Not clear the key difference between v04 and all other previous versions? 2. Why not specify transport, is container sto which the ffv1 is mapped equivalent to transport? without transport, how to provide confidentiality, integrity, and source authenticity? 3. how error_status and crc parity are used? e.g., using crc parity detect error? can error be repaired? how? 4. Is bitstream parameters such as version, micor-version,num_h_slices,num_v_slices sensitity information that can disclosed? any security risk?