Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
Summary: Needs a YES.
Comment (2004-07-08 for -)
Reviewer: Scott W Brim
Date: 8 July 2004
This draft is ready for publication as an Experimental RFC.
I'd go with "no objection". It's internally consistent. I can't tell
if it's a good match to actual requirements, or if there is a better
match, and the security scenario is a little disturbing, but that all
just means it's a good match for Experimental.
Comment (2004-02-04 for -)
From Gen-ART reviewer John Loughney:
It seems that this document is in good shape. It is well written. Security
Considersations seems to be quite thorough. Boiler plate is in good order.
I would recommend the following changes:
1) The draft needs a terminology section. FEC, Asynchronous Layered Coding,
would be good to define. FEC should be expanded on its first use as well.
2) Section 1.1.3, 2nd paragraph, last line:
Thus, the inherent raw scalability of FLUTE is unlimited.
This seems unsubstantiated, I would suggest deleting this line.
1) Odd formatting between UDP layer & Default LCT header in section 3.4:
| Default LCT header (with TOI = 0) |
(I thought I was seeing double at first ...)
I ran out of time to really pick at the document thoroughly, but otherwise
the document seems in good order.
Comment (2004-02-05 for -)
The security considerations begin with:
> The same security consideration that apply to ALC and to the LCT, FEC
> and the congestion control building block used in conjunction with
> FLUTE also apply to FLUTE.
Pointers to the documents that contain the appropriate security
considerations would be very helpful.
Please give the 'Statement of Intent' portion of the Introduction
a subsection number.
Please spell out FEC the first time it is used.
Please use 'example.com' instead of 'ex.com'
Please change 'SMIME' to 'S/MIME'
Please change 'Trojan horse' to 'Trojan Horse'