Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-15.txt

["Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Francis,

Thanks for the review. We addressed all these issues in the latest version.

Cheers, acbegen.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 11:41 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: review of draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-15.txt
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
> you may receive.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-15.txt
> Reviewer: Francis Dupont
> Review Date: 20100925
> IETF LC End Date: 20100928
> IESG Telechat date: unknown
> 
> Summary: Ready
> 
> Major issues: None
> 
> Minor issues: None
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
>  - Abstract page 1: if RTP is a well known abbrev RTCP is not, but
>   IMHO if someone reaches it (s)he should already know it...
> 
>  - 1 page 4 (first line and others): The receivers -> Receivers ??
> 
>  - 1 page 4: I am not convinced 'all of the Reference Information' is
>   really correct English ??
> 
>  - 3 page 8: the CNAME abbrev must be introduced
> 
>  - 6.2 3 page 20: RTP-RX -> RTP_Rx ?
> 
>  - 7 page 28: figure 4 has 'SSRC of media source' but the text has
>   'SSRC of media sender', this is very confusing!
> 
>  - 9 page 41: NAPT abbrev must be introduced (BTW NAT is well known)
> 
>  - 9 page 41: why only UDP is considered? DCCP is supposed to be a
>   good transport for RTP even in presence of NAT
> 
>  - 9 page 41: BTW the PCP WG should add another port forwarding
>   config way (but it was created far after the document)
> 
>  - 14.1 page 53: some normative references seem to be more informative,
>   for instance RFC5226 / BCP26
> 
> A+
> 
> [e-mail]