Re: [AVTCORE] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-08: (with COMMENT)

[Colin Perkins <[e-mail]>]

> On 20 Sep 2020, at 03:58, Erik Kline via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-08: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> [[ questions ]]
> 
> [ section 3.1 ]
> 
> * If L=0, do we need text about how to treat report entries with
>  non-zero ECN and ATO fields?

That shouldn’t happen, but I added “MUST be ignored” to clarify the error case.

>  Separately, what's a good mnemonic for "L"?  My instinct was to treat it
>  as the "Loss" bit, but with the meaning the values 0 and 1 reversed that
>  doesn't actually work very well.

I renamed the field to “R” for received.

> [[ nits ]]
> 
> [ section 1 ]
> 
> * "to have generic...format" -> "to have a generic...format", perhaps

Fixed.

> [ section 3.1 ]
> 
> * "sent previous reports" -> "previous reports sent", perhaps?

"sent in previous reports”

> [ section 7 ]
> 
> * "a=ecn-capaable-rtp:" -> "a=ecn-capable-rtp:”

Fixed

> [ section 8 ]
> 
> * "ECN marking marking information" -> "ECN marking information”


Fixed


-- 
Colin Perkins
https://csperkins.org/