[Fecframe] AD review: draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling-04

["David Harrington" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I have performed AD Review on draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling-04.

-- Technical and/or process concerns:

1) please check id-nits. There are some reported problems with
references, and example addresses.

2) Why is this document being requested to be published as
Experimental? Is there a lack of WG consensus for this design, or the
protocols discussed? If so, the concerns that prevent consensus from
being reached should be discussed,
probably with an explanation in the Introduction that this is an
Experimental proposal, not a standard.

3) In section 5.1, provide a reference explaining the UDP port 9875.
If this is IANA-assigned, please describe this in the IANA
Considerations section.

4) In the last paragraph of 5.1, when a delete has been received, the
receiver SHOULD no longer use the config info. Why is this not a MUST?

5) in 5.2, the assertion is made that using a generic protocol is
"under investigation and may be covered by a separate document." Where
is this under investigation? What document do you think will cover
this?

6) It helps IANA if you identify by URL the registry you want modified
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/rtsp-parameters/rtsp-parameters.xml
RTSP/1.0 Option Tags), and include the specific fields that require
filling.

7) The IANA considerations refer to section 4.2.2, but there is no
section 4.2.2 in this document.

Editorial comments:
"Independent of what all encoding formats supported by an FEC scheme,"
should be reworded.

section 5 uses a numbering scheme of (i), (b), (c). I suspect the
first should be (a).

I don't understand the topology pictured in Figure 1. I understand the
text, but the figure doesn't convey the topology very well.

The "simpler method" description in section 5.1.1 could use some
English language cleanup.






David Harrington
Director, IETF Transport Area
[e-mail] (preferred for ietf)
[e-mail]
[phone] (cell)