Re: [avtext] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-avtext-lrr-06: (with COMMENT)

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Jonathan Lennox <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi, sorry for the delay in responding.  Responses inline.
>
> > On Jun 19, 2017, at 7:32 PM, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-avtext-lrr-06: No Objection
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > S 2.1.
> >   In a layer refresh, however, other layers than the ones requested for
> >   refresh may still maintain dependency on earlier content of the
> >   stream.  This is the difference between a layer refresh and a Full
> >
> > This "however" is hard to read because the entire previous graf
> > talks about layer refreshes.
>
> The “however” is meant to indicate that we’re contrasting the layer being
> refreshed with the other layers which aren't.  I’ve reworded as
>
>         However, in a layer refresh, layers other than the ones …
>
> (incorporating Warren’s comment as well).  Does that read better to you?
>

A bit....

-Ekr


>
> > All the diagrams in this section would be a lot easier to read
> > if they said that <- means "refers to”
>
> Okay.  I’ve added text to the figure preambles that says it indicates a
> coding dependency.
>
>
> > S 3.1
> >   The Feedback Control Information (FCI) for the Layer Refresh Request
> >   consists of one or more FCI entries, the content of which is depicted
> >   in Figure 5.  The length of the LRR feedback message MUST be set to
> >   2+3*N, where N is the number of FCI entries.
> >
> > You should state that the length is in 32-bit words.
>
> Ok.
>
>
> >      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >      | RES     | TTID| TLID          | RES     | CTID| CLID (opt)    |
> >      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >
> > How is CLID optional? It seems like it still has to be there,
> > unless I am misreading the text.
>
> Its use / semantic is optional, but yes, syntactically it has to be there,
> so (opt) is confusing. Removed.
>
>
> >   Reserved (RES) (16 bits / 5 bits / 5 bits)  All bits SHALL be set to
> >      0 by the sender and SHALL be ignored on reception.
> >
> > I would mention that this is three fields.
>
> Ok.
>