Telechat Review of draft-ietf-fecframe-simple-rs-05

Request Review of draft-ietf-fecframe-simple-rs
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2012-12-18
Requested 2012-12-13
Authors Vincent Roca, Mathieu Cunche, Jerome Lacan, Amine Bouabdallah, Kazuhisa Matsuzono
Draft last updated 2013-01-04
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -?? by Miguel García
Genart Telechat review of -05 by Miguel García (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -?? by Jeffrey Hutzelman
Assignment Reviewer Miguel García 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-fecframe-simple-rs-05-genart-telechat-garcia-2013-01-04
Reviewed rev. 05 (document currently at 06)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2013-01-04


I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

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

Document: draft-ietf-fecframe-simple-rs-04
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <Miguel.A.Garcia at>
Review Date: 2012-10-17
IETF LC End Date: 2012-10-22

Summary: The document is ready for publication as a standards track RFC, 

but has some Nits that should be addressed.

Major issues: none

Minor issues: none

Nits/editorial comments:

- Section 5.1.1 starts with this sentence:

   The FEC Framework Configuration Information (or FFCI) includes
   information that MUST be communicated between the sender and

This is not a normative "MUST" that you are specifying. You are merely 

describing how another specification has a normative MUST, but it is not 

of this document. Therefore, this "MUST" should be replaced by a "need" 

or perhaps a "must".

- Section reads:

   When SDP is used to communicate the FFCI, this FEC Encoding ID is
   carried in the 'encoding-id' parameter.

Two points here:

a) I am missing a normative MUST, such as "this FEC Encoding ID MUST be 


b) I guess it would not be such a bad idea to complete the sentence with 

the attribute name in SDP and normative reference that defines the 

attribute and the parameter.


   When SDP is used to communicate the FFCI, this FEC Encoding ID MUST be
   carried in the 'encoding-id' parameter of the  'fec-repair-flow'
   attribute specified in RFC 6364 [RFC6364].

- Similarly in Section

If you agree with this changes, you should do similar changes to Section, the text beginning with "When SDP is used..." Notice also that 

the example following this text in Section is misleading because 

it does not contain a single SDP line, which is generally considered the 

atomic representation element in examples, but just a fraction of it. I 

suggest to extend the example to the full a=fec-repair-flow line.

- Section 8, IANA. Isn't the name of the registry "Reliable Multicast 

Transport (RMT) FEC Encoding IDs and FEC Instance IDs"? Or am I looking 

at the wrong registry? I think that the "FEC Framework (FECFRAME) FEC 

Encoding IDs is one of the registries included under that umbrella of RMT 

FEC Encoding IDs. As a reader, I would like to be able to find the right 

registry without doubt.

Miguel A. Garcia
Ericsson Spain