[Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-avtext-rams-scenarios-04

"Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@bell-labs.com> Fri, 27 April 2012 18:55 UTC

Return-Path: <vkg@bell-labs.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42AC821F8763 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:55:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -109.775
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.775 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.824, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bq-8Z+IeYL4O for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:55:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com (ihemail1.lucent.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A10521F874C for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:55:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com []) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id q3RItU7j024073 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:55:32 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from umail.lucent.com (umail-ce2.ndc.lucent.com []) by usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id q3RItURC013072 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:55:30 -0500
Received: from shoonya.ih.lucent.com (shoonya.ih.lucent.com []) by umail.lucent.com (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id q3RItTvm001836; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:55:30 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <4F9AECD4.1000800@bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:00:36 -0500
From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@bell-labs.com>
Organization: Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120329 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: draft-ietf-avtext-rams-scenarios@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on
Cc: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, "Drage, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@ALCATEL-LUCENT.COM>, Gonzalo Camarillo <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-avtext-rams-scenarios-04
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 18:55:35 -0000

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-avtext-rams-scenarios-04
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: Apr-27-2012
IETF LC End Date: Not known
IESG Telechat date: May-10-2012

Summary: This draft is ready as an Informational.

Major issues: 0
Minor issues: 0
Nits/editorial comments: 5


- S1: For readability, I would suggest the following change:

   ... In scenarios where multiple RAMS sessions, each initiated
    with an individual RAMS Request message to a different feedback
    target, will be simultaneously run by an RTP receiver, they need to
    be coordinated.

    ... Close coordination is required for multiple RAMS sessions
    simultaneously started by an RTP server, where each session
    is initiated with an individual RAMS Request message to a different
    feedback target.

- S2, second line: the use of the word "somewhow" just seems
  wishy-washy here.  Instead, I think it is better to say "... that
  are in some manner associated with each other."

- S3.1: Instead of saying "We run ..." and "we want to ..." better
  to say that "An individual RAMS sesson is run for each of the RTP
  streams that requires rapid acquisition."

- S3.4, same problem: instead of saying "we have only one RTP
  stream..." better to say "there is only one RTP stream ..."

- S6: Probably better to say that there are no new security attacks
  made possible by the this draft, however, security considerations of
  RFC6285 still apply.  Or something to that effect.


- vijay
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / vijay.gurbani@alcatel-lucent.com
Web:   http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/