Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-supression-rtp-16.txt

[Qin Wu <[e-mail]>]

Hi,Francis:
Thank you for careful and valuable review.please see my replies below inline.

Regards!
-Qin
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Francis Dupont" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 11:42 PM
Subject: review of draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-supression-rtp-16.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 wait for direction from your document shepherd
> or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-supression-16.txt
> Reviewer: Francis Dupont
> Review Date: 20120323
> IETF LC End Date: 20120326
> IESG Telechat date: 20120412
> 
> Summary: Ready
> 
> Major issues: None
> 
> Minor issues: None
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> These are about the -15 version updated to -16
> 
> - I-D name: supression -> suppression

[Qin]: Agree, but I assume I am not allowed to change I-D name at this stage,:-).


> - Abstract page 1: implosion -> explosion (things which can implode are rare :-)

[Qin]: RFC4588 referenced by this document is using "implosion". So I think it should
be fine to use the same term in this document.:-)
 
> - Abstract page 1: signalling -> signaling

[Qin]: Okay.
> 
> - Toc page 2 and 9 page 12: Acknowledgement -> Acknowledgment

[Qin]: Okay.
> 
> - Introduction page 4: RTCP is not a well known abbrev: as it is first you have
> to introduce it.

[Qin]Okay and will expand this abbrev.

> 
> - Introduction page 4: same for SSM: please introduce the abbrev

[Qin]: I have introduced this abbrev in the glossary section(i.e., section 2.1).
> 
> - Introduction page 4: implosion -> explosion

[Qin]: See above.

> - Introduction page 4 and other places: e.g. -> e.g.,

[Qin]: Okay.
> 
> - 3 page 6: ,which -> , which

[Qin]: Okay.
> 
> - 4 page 6: missing characters/words in "the PT, FMT,length SSRC"

[Qin]: Yes, missing a comma between "length" and "SSRC".
> 
> - 4.1 page 7: all caps in "transport layer third-party loss"

[Qin]: Okay.
> 
> - 4.2 page 7: if the SSRC is an IPv4 address the "set to 0" is not very correct.

[Qin] If SSRC is not used, it should be set to 0. 
RFC5104 also use this rule. So we follow this.
On the other hand if the SSRC is an IPv4 address, IPv4 address MUST not be set to
0 since 0 has already be reserved for the other use mentioned above. 
Also it is easy to cause SSRC collision if IPv4 address can be choose as 0.0.0.0 which is broadcast address.

> 
> - 4.2 page 7: media Source -> media source

[Qin]: Okay.
> 
> - 4.2 page 8: :32 -> : 32

[Qin]: Okay.
> 
> - 6.1 page 9: source- specific -> source-specific

[Qin]: Okay.

> 
> - 6.1 page 9: reason( -> reason ( & a RTCP -> an RTCP & NACK)and -> NACK) and

[Qin]: Okay.

> 
> - 6.2 page 10: Sources(BRS) -> Sources (BRS)

[Qin]: Okay.

> 
> - 6.2 page 10: a RTCP -> an RTCP

[Qin]: Okay.

> 
> - 6.4 page 10: receivers. e.g., -> receivers: e.g.,

[Qin]: Okay.

> 
> - 6.4 page 10: a RTCP -> an RTCP
> 

[Qin]: Okay.

> - 6.5 page 11: a RTCP -> an RTCP (with a line break in the middle :-)

[Qin]: Okay,:-).

> 
> - 7 page 11: supression -> suppression

[Qin]: Okay.

> 
> - 9 page 12: Acknowledgement -> Acknowledgment, VAN CAENEGEM -> van Caenegem,
>  Johansson S -> Johansson

[Qin]: Okay.

> 
> - 10.2 page 14: please give the names of I-Ds

[Qin]: Okay.

> 
> - Appendix A page 14: usually the change log is in the reverse order (?)

[Qin]: Okay,I can change that based on your suggestion.

> 
> - A.8 page 16: ,Security -> , Security

[Qin]: Okay.

> 
> - A.14 page 17: refereces -> references

[Qin]: Okay.

> 
> Regards
> 
> [e-mail]