Re: [avtext] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-avtext-lrr-05

[Jonathan Lennox <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Roni — thanks for your review.  Responses inline.

> On Jun 1, 2017, at 2:53 AM, Roni Even <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Roni Even
> Review result: Ready with Issues
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-avtext-lrr-??
> Reviewer: Roni Even
> Review Date: 2017-05-31
> IETF LC End Date: 2017-06-08
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary:
> The document is ready with issues for a standard track RFC
> Major issues:
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
> 1. Can you specify both TTID and TLID in the same FCI.

Syntactically, they must both occur.

If you mean can you request an upgrade in both at once, yes; I’ve added text to clarify this.

> 2. What is the meaning of value 0 for TTID and TLID - TID or LID =0 in
> frame marking draft means base layer if there is scalability.
>     This relates to the previous question. 

I’m not sure I understand this question.

I’ve added text that if C=1, at least one of <TTID, TLID> MUST be greater than <CTID, CLID>, and both MUST be greater than or equal to their counterpart, so the LRR is actually requesting a layer upgrade.  Is that what you were asking about?

> 3.  What would an FCI with both TTID and TLID equal 0 mean.

It means you want a refresh of the base temporal/spatial layer, only.

> Nits/editorial comments: 
> 
> 1. Section 3 "an Real-Time Transport Control Protocol" should be "a
> Real…".

Colin pointed out that it should say “an RTP Control Protocol” anyway.

> 2. In section 3 " [RFC5104](Section 3.5.1)" there is a link to section
> 3.5.1 but it does not work.

xml2rfc doesn’t have any way to link to sections of other documents, so the “(Section 3.5.1)” part is just a comment.

I think the internet-draft tooling may have thought I was trying to link to a non-existent section 3.5.1 of this document, but that’s outside my control.

> 3. In section 3.2 "(see section Section 2.1)" section appears twice.

Fixed.