[avtext] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-avtext-lrr-06: (with COMMENT)

Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Mon, 19 June 2017 16:42 UTC

Return-Path: <warren@kumari.net>
X-Original-To: avtext@ietf.org
Delivered-To: avtext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0B1E1315E8; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 09:42:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-avtext-lrr@ietf.org, Rachel Huang <rachel.huang@huawei.com>, avtext-chairs@ietf.org, rachel.huang@huawei.com, avtext@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.55.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <149789055182.10693.14113388808017091940.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 09:42:31 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avtext/C54TSDX1c6Ylzjeyj_PAzJ5F9vk>
Subject: [avtext] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-avtext-lrr-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: avtext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Extensions working group discussion list <avtext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/avtext>, <mailto:avtext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/avtext/>
List-Post: <mailto:avtext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avtext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avtext>, <mailto:avtext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 16:42:32 -0000

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-avtext-lrr-06: 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-avtext-lrr/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Firstly, thank you for addressing Fred Baker's OpsDir comments -
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-avtext-lrr-05-opsdir-lc-baker-2017-06-07/
-- this change "fixes" the document for me.

I found this document easy to read, and a useful introduction to the topic;
this is in spite of my knowing basically nothing about codecs and RTCP.

I did have some nits and a larger question:
Question:
1: 3.1.  Message Format (and others)
The document says things like: " When C is 1, TTID MUST NOT be less than CTID,
and TLID MUST NOT be less than CLID;" -- cool, no worries... But, what do I do
if I receive an LRR feedback message where e.g: the TTID *is* less than CTID?
Do I just ignore the message? Do I self destruct? (Basically, what does
error-handling look like?)

Nits:
1: 2.1.  Terminology
"In a layer refresh, however, other layers than the ones requested for refresh
may still..." To me the "other layers" bit sounds clumsy - "In a layer refresh,
however, layers other than the ones requested for refresh may still..." reads
much better - this construct is in a few other places too. I don't think that
this changes the meaning at all; tis just a nit, feel free to ignore.

2: The "numbers" in the figures feel like they are going backwards (or I've
completely misunderstood the document :-)) -- I would expect the frame numbered
'1' to be the first frame, and the second to be numbered 2. So, the number in
the diagrams would go " 4  3  2  1 "; otherwise, you are counting "down"
towards frame 0. It feels weird (and is somewhat confusing) for e.g frame 2 to
be based on frame 3 (and not frame 1). I have no idea if this is the convention
for frame numbering - if so, feel free to ignore.

3: The convention is Security Considerations go just before IANA Considerations
-- swap S6 and 7? (Hey, I did say these are nits!)