Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-12

Request Review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 17)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2013-11-27
Requested 2013-10-31
Authors Alan Clark , Qin Wu , Roland Schott , Glen Zorn
I-D last updated 2013-11-12
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -12 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -13 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -12 by Derek Atkins (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Joel M. Halpern
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 12 (document currently at 17)
Result Almost ready
Completed 2013-11-12
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-qoe-12
    RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Blocks for
                       MOS Metric Reporting
Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
Review Date: 12-November-2013
IETF LC End Date: 27-November-2013
IESG Telechat date: N/A

Summary: This document is nearly ready for publication as a Proposed 

Standard RFC

Major issues:

Moderate issues:

    In section 3.2.2 on Multi-Channel audio per SSRC Segment, the 

format description for the Calculation Algorithm ID (CAID) reads:

"The 8-bit ID is the local identifier of this segment in the range

1-255 inclusive."  I am pretty sure this is supposed to be an algorithm 

ID, not a segment index?

    The text in section 4.1 indicates that the number after "calg:" in 

the mapentry of the calgextmap is used as the ID in the CAID of the 

xrblock.  The packet format only allows 8 bits of value.  So why does 

the SDP format allow up to 5 digits?  Also, is there some reason that 

the special values 4095-4351 (in section 4.1) or 4096-4351 (in section 

4.2) are used rather than say equally invalid 512 through some 

appropriate upper bound still in 3 digits?

Minor issues:

    Please ensure that all acronyms are expanded on first use.  For 

example, QoE is not expanded.

    The notes in B.3 indicate that mostype was to be removed from the 

SDP grammar.  But it is still defined.  And section 4.2 still mentions 

it, even though it does not get referenced by the message format. Please 

finish removing it.  (also "most type")

Nits/editorial comments: