Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-basic-schemes-revised-05

[Elwyn Davies <[e-mail]>]

This all seems fine to me.. I'll take a look at the next version when it 
appears.

No worries on the delay... you should see some of mine ;-)

/Elwyn

Mark Watson wrote:
> Elwyn, all,
>
> Please accept my apologies for the excessive delay in addressing these
> comments. My plan for addressing these in the -06 draft is below.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mark
>
>
> On 7/18/08 8:57 AM, "Elwyn Davies" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>   
>> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
>> reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
>> _http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html_).
>>
>> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
>> you may receive.
>>
>>
>> Document: draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-basic-schemes-revised-05.txt
>> Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
>> Review Date: 18 July 2008
>> IETF LC End Date: 29 July 2008
>> IESG Telechat date: n/a
>>
>> Summary:
>> Nearly ready for IESG.  A few minor issues mainly with failure to
>> specify encodings and a couple of corner cases. A few editorial nits
>> noted below.
>>
>> Comments:
>>
>> s3.2.1: Need to explicitly document the encoding used for SBNs (also
>> applies to s4.2.1 and s5.2.1. s5.2.1 also needs to specify encoding for
>> Source Block Length).
>>     
>
> - Add a clarifying sentence in the introduction that all integer fields are
> in network byte order.
> - In the individual sections, specify that the fields are 'x-bit unsigned
> integers' with suitable values of x.
>
>   
>> s3.2.1, bottom of page 6/top of page 7: s/is processed at/to process the
>> block by/ (two places) (or some such .. it doesn't read well at present).
>>     
>
> New sentence: "The transport time of a source block includes the amount of
> time needed to process the source block at the sender transport layer, the
> network transit time for packets, and the amount of time needed to process
> the source block at the receiver transport."
>
>   
>> s3.2.2.2: need to explicitly state encoding of various values (unsigned
>> integers I assume). (also applies to s4.2.2.2, s4.2.2.3, s5.2.2.2
>>     
>
> Ok. I will add a paragraph under each figure.
>
>   
>> s4.2.2.3:  The case where the length is zero is a lttle odd!  I think it
>> would be worth explicitly stating that (either) the whole object is just
>> one octet long (or) it is four octets padded with zeroes.  The latter
>> case might make processing more consistent since otherwise the zero case
>> is special and the only case where the object is not four octet aligned.
>>     
>
> Ok - I believe there are no users of this field at present so it is safe to
> include the padding for four-octet alignment.
>
>   
>> s5.1:  it is not possible to encode the source block length of 65536 in
>> 16 bits unless 0 is overloaded to mean 2^^16.  This isn't specified. (I
>> assume 'at most' to be read as 'less than or equal').
>>
>>     
>
> The maximum size should be 65535.
>
>   
>> Editorial:
>>
>> Abstract:  Need to expand FEC at least once!
>> s1, 2nd para after bullets: genrally not recommended to mention WG
>> s1, last para: s/listed/are listed/
>> s3.2.1: Need to asociate Source Block Number and SBN explicitly (well, I
>> assume that is what SBN means!).
>> s3.4.1, next to last para: s/implementor of/implementor/
>> s3.4.2, lastpara: s/substracting/subtracting/
>> s4.4.2.2: I take the reference in the last para of the section (just
>> above Fig 4) should be to s3.2.2.2.
>>     
>
> Actually it should be to the figure.
>
>   
>> s10, 2nd bullet: s/th/the/
>> s10, 3rd bullet: s/sis/did/
>>
>>     
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
>
>   
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art