Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-payload-vp8-08

Request Review of draft-ietf-payload-vp8
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 17)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2013-06-18
Requested 2013-06-06
Authors Patrik Westin , Henrik Lundin , Michael Glover , Justin Uberti , Frank Galligan
I-D last updated 2013-06-08
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -08 by Elwyn B. Davies (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -09 by Elwyn B. Davies (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -16 by Elwyn B. Davies (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -17 by Elwyn B. Davies
Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Brian Weis (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Elwyn B. Davies
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-payload-vp8 by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 08 (document currently at 17)
Result Ready
Completed 2013-06-08
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at


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

Document: draft-ietf-payload-vp8-08
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 7 June 2013
IETF LC End Date: 18 June 2013 
IESG Telechat date: (if known) -

Summary: Almost ready.  Needs to specify the format of all the integer
fields - a generic statement that 'all integer fields in the
specifications are encoded as unsigned integers in network octet order'
will solve this.  There is a rather awkquard downref to the VP8 coded
data format RFC 6386 - take advice from your AD on this one.  Check that
the media type registration is OK with the updated BCP (RFC 6838)

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:
General: Consistent use of octets instead of bytes.

s4: I suspect that usage of RTP/AVPF is an upper case RECOMMENDED.  A
brief explanation of *why* the usage of RTP/AVPF is RECOMMENDED would be

s4.1: The formats for the Timestamp and Sequence Number fields are not
specified (presumably unsigned integers in network octet order).

s4.2: The formats for PartID, PictureID, TL0PICIDX, TID, and KEYIDX are
not specified(presumably unsigned integers in network octet order).

s4.2, Y bit: s/an change/a change/; s/rfc 6386/[RFC6386]/ 

s4.3, SizeN:  s/The size of the first partition size/The size of the
first partition/

s4.3: SizeN and VER need formats.

s5.2: First, Number and (possibly) PictureID need formats.

s6.2.2: s/will need a mean/will need a means/

s10:  Are all of the refs normative?  If so change the section title.
The only one which I am dubious about is RFC 4566 (and there is  6386 -
see next comment).

s10:  id nits complains that RFC 3894 is not referenced, RFC 4288 is
obsoleted by 6838 (need to check your media type registration against
the updated BCP) and RFC 6386 is a downref (you had better ask your AD
about this downref - it is fairly fundamental!)