[AVTCORE] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-multi-stream-optimisation-08

"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Mon, 09 November 2015 21:48 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE1991B8549; Mon, 9 Nov 2015 13:48:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p_QajCHMPlEV; Mon, 9 Nov 2015 13:48:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D67481B8547; Mon, 9 Nov 2015 13:48:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.10] (cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id tA9Lm85j082371 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 9 Nov 2015 15:48:08 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4] claimed to be [10.0.1.10]
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
To: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-multi-stream-optimisation.all@ietf.org, "avt@ietf.org WG" <avt@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2015 15:48:07 -0600
Message-ID: <0FBEEF14-CA50-4C3A-815F-303F19A060B5@nostrum.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.3r5164)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/iWxD1kKTjb8WPpsvVOOEBZgQRrA>
Subject: [AVTCORE] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-multi-stream-optimisation-08
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/avt/>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2015 21:48:13 -0000

Hi,

Here is my AD Evaluation of 
draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-multi-stream-optimisation-08:

Ben.

-----------

Substantive Comments:
=====================

-3.1, 4th paragraph:

Is “SHOULD NOT…unless” the actual intent? That means you 
shouldn’t do it unless that condition occurs, or you have some other 
good reason and understand the consequences. (as compared to "MUST NOT 
… unless")

-4.2, 1st paragraph:

Does this refer to third-party observers? (That is, observers not 
involved in the signaling of support for rtcp-rgrp?

-7.2, reference to RFC3264:

Should this be a normative reference? I’m not sure 3.6 will make much 
sense without it.

Editorial Comments:
===================

-3.1, 5th paragraph:

Option "A" is hard to parse. I suggest:

"... if another reporting source exists,  have it report on the remote 
SSRCs that the departing source reported ..."

- 3.2.1, 2nd paragraph:

Consider active voice for the first sentence, i.e. "This document 
defines..."

- 3.2.2, 1st paragraph:

Consider active voice for the first sentence, i.e. "This document 
defines..."

- 3.6, 2nd to last paragraph: "... neither agents SHALL use..."

Please restate as SHALL NOT/MUST NOT.

-4.1, last paragraph: "approximately 8.9"

That's a rather precise approximation :-)