Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-fecframe-ldpc-02

Vincent Roca <vincent.roca@inria.fr> Tue, 09 October 2012 13:23 UTC

Return-Path: <vincent.roca@inria.fr>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91CFE11E8106; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 06:23:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -111.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-111.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ElDZFibddkBW; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 06:23:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32DAD11E80F8; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 06:23:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,560,1344204000"; d="scan'208";a="176466501"
Received: from geve.inrialpes.fr ([194.199.24.116]) by mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 09 Oct 2012 15:22:59 +0200
From: Vincent Roca <vincent.roca@inria.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 15:22:59 +0200
Message-Id: <7DB3D313-2756-440D-83FB-8220CA87D9AB@inria.fr>
To: meral.shirazipour@ericsson.com, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
Cc: draft-ietf-fecframe-ldpc-all@tools.ietf.org, gen-art@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-fecframe-ldpc-02
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: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 13:23:02 -0000

Hello Meral,

Thanks a lot for your review. Please, find our answers below.

> Document: draft-ietf-fecframe-ldpc-02
> Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour
> Review Date: 2012-10-01
> IETF LC End Date: 2012-10-01
> IESG Telechat date: NA
>
>
> Summary:
> This draft is almost ready for publication as a standard track RFC, but I have some comments.
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
> [Page 3], Section 1, "ALC [RFC5775]", please spell out ALC: "Asynchronous Layered Coding (ALC)"

Done.


> [Page 3], Section 1, "NORM [RFC5740]", please spell out NORM: "NACK-Oriented Reliable Multicast (NORM)"

Done.


> [Page 4], line 3, ALU is first used, please spell out: "Application Data Unit (ADU)", or move section "3.3 Abbreviations" to the beginning.

Done.


> [Page 4], Section "3.1.  Definitions", after the ":" for all definitions, please start with capital letters or with lower case (for consistency please choose one)

Right, this is not consistent. Moved everything to lower case letters.


> [Page 5], for "ADU Block", it would clearer to have Flow ID, Length and Padding fields in parenthesis next to F[], L[], and Pad[] respectively.

Done.
I also realized we were using the term FID[i] twice to denote the F[i] field in section 4.3 "Source block creation".
We corrected to use F[] throughout the document.

NEW:
  ADU Block:  a set of ADUs that are considered together by the
      FECFRAME instance for the purpose of the FEC scheme.  Along with
      the flow ID (F[]), length (L[]), and padding (Pad[]) fields, they
      form the set of source symbols over which FEC encoding will be
      performed.

> [Page 5], after "FEC Framework Configuration Information" please add "(FFCI)".

Done.


> [Page 5], section 4.1, "G MUST be equal..", please define G in section "3.2.  Notations".

Added.


> [Page 9], last sentence, "Each ADUI contributes to exactly one source symbol to the source block.", it is clearer to say "...of the source block."

Done


> [Page 15], Section 6.1.1, "(e.g., before versus after FEC protection, and within the end-system versus in a middlebox)", please rephrase if possible, this is not very clear.

Done.

NEW:

   (e.g., is encryption applied before or after FEC protection, within the end-system or in a middlebox)


> [Page 19], reference [SIMPLE_RS] is now at version 03.

Now in version -04. Updated.


> [Page 19], reference [RFC5053]: title is missing "for Object Delivery"

Exact! Fixed.


> -Overall for clarity, please adapt one method for spelling out acronyms (either in one section in intro, or throughout the text as they are first used; but not both).

I think it's homogeneous now.


> -Overall for clarity, some line feed would be useful in section 5.  

I've added the <?rfc rfcedstyle="yes"?> magic directive, and now lists are much more readable.
I've also changed the style of lists for "symbols", and it also helps making it more readable.

>
> Best Regards,
> Meral
>
> ---
> Meral Shirazipour
> Ericsson Research
> www.ericsson.com
> 
> --

Cheers,

   Vincent, on behalf of the authors