[Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-avtext-avpf-ccm-layered-03

"Vijay K.Gurbani" <vijay.gurbani@nokia-bell-labs.com> Wed, 30 November 2016 17:06 UTC

Return-Path: <vijay.gurbani@nokia-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 D153E120725; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 09:06:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.021
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.021 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fop0vyZ6LV2t; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 09:06:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-us.alcatel-lucent.com (us-hpswa-esg-02.alcatel-lucent.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BFD61298B9; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 09:06:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from us70uumx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown []) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 83345F1EDC87A; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 17:06:52 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from us70uusmtp4.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (us70uusmtp4.zam.alcatel-lucent.com []) by us70uumx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id uAUH6seA014154 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 30 Nov 2016 17:06:54 GMT
Received: from umail.lucent.com (umail.ndc.lucent.com []) by us70uusmtp4.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id uAUH6rAh008746 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 30 Nov 2016 17:06:54 GMT
Received: from [] (shoonya.ih.lucent.com []) by umail.lucent.com (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id uAUH6rp2022769; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 11:06:53 -0600 (CST)
From: "Vijay K.Gurbani" <vijay.gurbani@nokia-bell-labs.com>
To: draft-ietf-avtext-avpf-ccm-layered.all@ietf.org
Message-ID: <cc61fc6a-792d-d60c-d9d0-8a6d113630a0@nokia-bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 11:06:53 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/fjQvmdha1rsiJAD-3BNGijHT_h8>
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-avtext-avpf-ccm-layered-03
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 17:07:00 -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-avpf-ccm-layered-03
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: Nov-30-2016
IETF LC End Date: Dec-14-2016
IESG Telechat date: Unknown

This document is ready as an Proposed Standard (modulo a couple of
minor and nit comments below).

Major: 0
Minor: 1
Nits: 2

- S5, S6: This is a standards-track document.  As such, I am not sure
  what the "(Informative)" moniker implies in the section heading.
  Since there is no RFC-2119 type of exhortations in the sections, it
  seems reasonable to simply remove the "(Informative)" tag in the
  section headings without loosing any material context while reading
  the paragraph.  The presence of the tag renders ambiguity.

- S1: s/which the FIR request/that the FIR request/
- S1: In this section and rest of the document, you sometimes use FIR
  and at other times Full Intra Request.  Once you have defined Full
  Intra Request as FIR, I would suggest using FIR for consistency.


- vijay
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Nokia Networks
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: vkg@bell-labs.com / vijay.gurbani@nokia-bell-labs.com
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/  | Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq