Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-fecframe-ext-04

Request Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-fecframe-ext
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2018-09-24
Requested 2018-09-10
Authors Vincent Roca , Ali C. Begen
I-D last updated 2018-09-14
Completed reviews Tsvart Last Call review of -04 by Colin Perkins (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -06 by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -04 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Christer Holmberg
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-tsvwg-fecframe-ext by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 04 (document currently at 08)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2018-09-14
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


Document: draft-ietf-tsvwg-fecframe-ext-04
Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
Review Date: 2018-09-14
IETF LC End Date: 2018-09-24
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: The document is well written, but there is an issue regarding backward
compatibility that I want the authors to address.

Major issues:


Regarding backward compatibility, it's difficult for me to parse the second
bullet in Section 1.

The text seems to assume that SDP, and RFC 6364, are used to negotiate FEC.
But, RFC 6364 is only an informative reference, and I assume FEC does not even
mandate SDP?

Is there a generic requirement that the endpoints must negotiate the usage of
this mechanism before it is used? Or, can the mechanism be used towards an
endpoint that does not support it?

Minor issues:


Nits/editorial comments:


The document uses "extends RFC 6363" terminology in a couple of places. I
suggest to use "updates" instead.


Section 1 says:

     'This document is fully backward compatible with [RFC6363] that it extends
     but does not replace."

I don't think you need the "extends but does not replace" part.