Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1-17

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
Reviewed revision 17 (document currently at 20)
Result Ready
Completed 2020-09-06
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?