[apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-decodability-09

Enrico Marocco <enrico.marocco@telecomitalia.it> Tue, 19 March 2013 15:47 UTC

Return-Path: <enrico.marocco@telecomitalia.it>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA8A121F8EE1 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 08:47:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Quarantine-ID: <LtgVXmmCMOz7>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Non-encoded 8-bit data (char E2 hex): To: ...pps-discuss@ietf.org>, \n\t<\342\200\213draft-ietf-xr[...]
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.569
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LtgVXmmCMOz7 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 08:47:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from GRFEDG702RM001.telecomitalia.it (grfedg702rm001.telecomitalia.it [217.169.121.21]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3E7E21F8EDF for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 08:47:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from grfhub702rm001.griffon.local (10.19.3.9) by GRFEDG702RM001.telecomitalia.it (10.173.88.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.297.1; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 16:47:32 +0100
Received: from MacLab.local (163.162.180.246) by smtp.telecomitalia.it (10.19.9.235) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.297.1; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 16:47:31 +0100
Message-ID: <51488893.4080202@telecomitalia.it>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 16:47:31 +0100
From: Enrico Marocco <enrico.marocco@telecomitalia.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, ​draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-decodability.all@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="------------ms090900030108020504020301"
X-TI-Disclaimer: Disclaimer1
Subject: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-decodability-09
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 15:47:37 -0000

I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for
this draft (for background on appsdir, please see
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate ).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-decodability-09
Title: RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for MPEG2
Transport Stream (TS) Program Specific Information (PSI) Independent
Decodability Statistics Metrics reporting
Reviewer: Enrico Marocco
Review Date: 2013-03-19
IETF Last Call Date: Unknown
IESG Telechat Date: Unknown

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Standards Track RFC.
From an APPS point of view there no issues with this document, but a
bunch of nits the RFC Editor would have spotted anyway.

Nits:

General note: ETSI TR 101 290 is mentioned in several places throughout
the document. It should be replaced with the actual reference ([ETSI]).

Abstract: The last sentence is really hard to read. I'm not sure I
entirely understand what it means, so I'll let it up to the authors to
propose a better wording.

S. 3, "Reserved" definition: s/senders ignored/senders and ignored/