Last Call Review of draft-ietf-netvc-testing-08
review-ietf-netvc-testing-08-genart-lc-palombini-2019-06-03-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-netvc-testing
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2019-06-04
Requested 2019-05-21
Authors Thomas Daede, Andrey Norkin, Ilya Brailovskiy
Draft last updated 2019-06-03
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -08 by Francesca Palombini (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -08 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Francesca Palombini
State Completed
Review review-ietf-netvc-testing-08-genart-lc-palombini-2019-06-03
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/5VYNPF6JKe4MssTms4t9kcG7RNg
Reviewed rev. 08 (document currently at 09)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2019-06-03

Review
review-ietf-netvc-testing-08-genart-lc-palombini-2019-06-03

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-netvc-testing-08
Reviewer: Francesca Palombini
Review Date: 2019-06-02
IETF LC End Date: 2019-06-04
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be fixed before publication.

Major issues: N/A

Minor issues: N/A

Nits/editorial comments: 

* The document is missing the IANA section and Security Considerations section. Although they do not apply (as the shepherd noted), these sections are required. (See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7322#section-4.8.5 and https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7322#section-4.8.3)

* Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of draft-ietf-netvc-requirements-08

All following comments are suggestions that would have helped a non-expert reader (feel free to disregard):

* Section 2 - Subjective testing is mentioned in the first sentence with no introduction. Although quite clear, a short definition or a reference to literature would have been helpful.

* Section 2, second to last paragraph - The text is somewhat not well formulated. "... even if the group agrees that a particular test is important... then the test should be discarded. This ensures that only important tests be done; in particular, the tests that are important to participants" I understand that the paragraph was meant to underline the necessity of selecting tests that participants can/will complete in a timely fashion. But the formulation is not great: the group agrees on a particular test is important, but if it is not completed it is not important?

* There are several acronym across the document that could have been expanded on first use, or used a reference to the definition: PMF, PSNR, PSNR-HVS-M, CQP

* Section 3.7 - "This metric is focused on quality degradation due compression and rescaling" missing "to"

* Section 5.2 - It would have been good to explicitly write out here what the parenthesis after each test indicates (resolution, bit depth, etc)

* Section 5.2.2 - "High bit depth" could you quantify more precisely what high is here?

* Section 5.2.4 and 5.2.5 - Does "old version" mean this should be seen as deprecated?

(Please keep my address in the To: field if you want to make sure I see any response to this thread)

Thanks,
Francesca