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

Hi Ali,

will you have a chance to work on this soon? 
I think these are almost all fairly simple editorial changes.
Fixing these should make it easier to get through IESG Eval.

Thanks,
David Harrington
Director, IETF Transport Area
ietfdbh@comcast.net (preferred for ietf)
dbharrington@huaweisymantec.com
+1 603 828 1401 (cell)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:fecframe-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of David Harrington
> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 7:06 PM
> To: fecframe@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: [Fecframe] AD review:
draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling-04
> 
> 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
> ietfdbh@comcast.net (preferred for ietf)
> dbharrington@huaweisymantec.com
> +1 603 828 1401 (cell)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Fecframe mailing list
> Fecframe@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe
> 