[AVT] AD review: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-h264-rcdo-06

[Gonzalo Camarillo <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

as part of a load balancing exercise between Robert and I, I will be
acting as the responsible AD for this draft.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-h264-rcdo/

Below you can find my AD review. As soon as the authors address these
comments (it should be trivial to address them), I will IETF Last Call
this draft.

Thanks,

Gonzalo


The acronyms RTP and RCDO need to be expanded in the title of the
draft. In general, all acronyms need to be expanded on their first
use.

The document refers to [3] as RFC3984bis. Given that [3] is a
normative reference, this document will not be published until [3] is
published as well. So, referring to it as, say, RFCYYYY and then get
the RFC Editor to update the text seems like a better option than
calling it RFC3984bis.

Page 19: section X should be section 9.

Section 9: "although if suitable the usage of SRTP [11] is
recommended". Should that be a normative RECOMMENDED instead?

The draft should have a reference to the SDP spec: RFC 4566.