RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for Loss Concealment Metrics for Video Applications
RFC 7867

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

Alvaro Retana No Objection

(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) (was Discuss, Yes) Yes

Yes (2016-04-21)
No email
send info
IPR issue has been resolved.

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2015-12-15 for -05)
No email
send info
-- Section 7.3 --
There is no longer a "RAI" area, and <rai-ads@tools.ietf.org> is no longer an appropriate email address (for two reasons: these aliases have also been moved to @ietf.org).  I suppose this should now be "ART Area Directors" and "<art-ads@ietf.org>".

We should check this in other documents that come from the former APP and RAI areas, as well.

(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2016-01-06 for -05)
No email
send info
(Note that there was a post IETF LC IPR declaration. We should discuss whether we need to re-run the last call. I think Alissa is on top of this, so I did not make this a DISCUSS)

Otherwise, I have a few minor comments:

- 4: "The report block MUST be sent in conjunction with the information from the Measurement Information Block [RFC6776]. "

"MUST be sent in conjunction" is ambiguous. I think you mean that, if the LC block is sent, the Measurement Information Block MUST also be sent.

=== Editorial===
- 1, 2nd paragraph:
Please expand QoE on first mention.
Also, I think there's a cut-paste or edit error in the last sentence:
OLD:
     Evaluating error concealment is important in the circumstance in estimating the subjective impact of impairments.
NEW:
     Evaluating error concealment is important for estimating the subjective impact of impairments.

-4:, 1st paragraph:
There are several instances of "this metric block" where the antecedent for "this" is not clear. I think they all refer to the loss concealment block. I suggest changing most or all instances of "this metric block" to "the loss concealment block."

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -05)
No email
send info

(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -05)
No email
send info

(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -05)
No email
send info

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -05)
No email
send info

(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2016-01-07 for -05)
No email
send info
scott bradner performed the opsdir review

(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -05)
No email
send info

(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -05)
No email
send info

(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2016-01-07 for -05)
No email
send info
... and I would be a Yes, except that I don't want to be a Yes while the sponsoring AD is still a Discuss!

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2016-01-06 for -05)
No email
send info
I agree with Ben's comment about the IPR. If it helps,
I'd be happy to hold a discuss to get that sorted.

(Terry Manderson; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -05)
No email
send info