Last Call Review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv-
review-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv-genart-lc-melnikov-2012-07-23-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2012-07-23
Requested 2012-07-12
Authors Alan Clark , Qin Wu
I-D last updated 2012-07-23
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -?? by Alexey Melnikov
Secdir Last Call review of -?? by Vincent Roca
Assignment Reviewer Alexey Melnikov
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Completed 2012-07-23
review-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv-genart-lc-melnikov-2012-07-23-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
< 

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv-03.txt
Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov
Review Date: 23 July 2012
IETF LC End Date: 23 July 2012
IESG Telechat date: N/A

Summary: Almost Ready

Major issues: None

Minor issues:

In Section 4:

        pdvtype     = "pdv="    0      ; MAPDV2 ITU-T G.1020
                              / 1      ; 2-point PDV ITU-T Y.1540



Firstly, I think you meant "0" and "1" above (you are missing quotes). 


Secondly, this doesn't allow for future pdvtype registrations, so you 


should be using something like 1*2DIGIT here (with a comment that value 


0-15 are valid), or something more specific.







The document creates a new registry with "Specification Required", yet 


the shepherding write-up says that the document doesn't create any 


registry with Expert Review (question 18). So one of the two is 


incorrect, I don't know which one.




Nits/editorial comments: None