Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-post-repair-loss-count-07

Request Review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-post-repair-loss-count
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2014-12-26
Requested 2014-12-15
Authors Rachel Huang , Varun Singh
I-D last updated 2014-12-25
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -07 by Tom Taylor (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Scott G. Kelly (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -07 by Tina Tsou (Ting ZOU) (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Tom Taylor
State Completed
Review review-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-post-repair-loss-count-07-genart-lc-taylor-2014-12-25
Reviewed revision 07 (document currently at 11)
Result Ready w/issues
Completed 2014-12-25
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-xrblock-rtcp-xr-post-repair-loss-count-07
Reviewer: Tom Taylor
Review Date: 2014-12-24
IETF LC End Date: 2014-12-26
IESG Telechat date: 2015-01-08

Summary: This document is mostly to publish as a Proposed Standard, with 

minor issues verging on editorial corrections.

Major issues: None.

Minor issues:

1) Second paragraph of Introduction: last sentence introduces the 

"repaired loss count". I found this confusing. Figure 1 shows you really 

meant "unrepaired loss count".

2) First paragraph of Section 3, third sentence: the ending currently reads:
   "Some packets will not be repaired in the current
   RTCP interval."

I think your point is that some of these could be repaired later, so I 

suggest the text should be extended:

   "Some packets will not be repaired in the current
    RTCP interval, but could be repaired later."

3) I question whether RFCs 4588 and 5109 are normative for this 

document, but I know this sort of thing is a difficult decision and I'll 

accept whatever the final outcome is.

4) Appendix A: The "Units of Measurement" are packets.

Nits/editorial comments:

1) First paragraph of introduction:
      s/contains/contain/ at end of first line.

Fourth sentence:


   However, this metric is measured on media stream before
   any loss repair mechanism, e.g., retransmission [RFC4588] and Forward
   Error Correction (FEC) [RFC5109], is applied.


   However, this metric is measured on the media stream before
   any loss repair mechanism, e.g., retransmission [RFC4588] or Forward
   Error Correction (FEC) [RFC5109], is applied.

I would break this paragraph into three parts. The first three sentences 

introduce the existing metric. The next two sentences, from "However, 

..." to "... [RFC3550].", introduce the problem. The following two 

sentences, from "Consequently ..." through "... higher overhead.", give 

an attempted solution. The final sentence, I think, is the motivator for 

this document and I would merge it into the next paragraph.

2) First paragrpah of Section 3: again, I suggest it be broken into 

three parts. The second part would begin with "Thus it is RECOMMENDED 

...", and the third with "The sequence number range ...".

3) The sentence preceding Figure 1 should identify "Figure 1" explicitly 

(via XML2RFC cross-reference if that is what you are using). It should 

also note that bit positions are given in octal -- the first time I've 

seen that in a document, but it's OK with me.

5) Section 5, third line: s/confidentially/confidentiality/