Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-netvc-testing-08

[Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>]

Francesca, thanks for your review. I entered a DISCUSS ballot to get IANA considerations and security considerations added.

Alissa

> On Jun 3, 2019, at 7:59 AM, Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Francesca Palombini
> Review result: Ready with Nits
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-netvc-testing-08
> Reviewer: Francesca Palombini
> Review Date: 2019-06-02
> IETF LC End Date: 2019-06-04
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that
> should be fixed before publication.
> 
> Major issues: N/A
> 
> Minor issues: N/A
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> * The document is missing the IANA section and Security Considerations section.
> Although they do not apply (as the shepherd noted), these sections are
> required. (See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7322#section-4.8.5 and
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7322#section-4.8.3)
> 
> * Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of
> draft-ietf-netvc-requirements-08
> 
> All following comments are suggestions that would have helped a non-expert
> reader (feel free to disregard):
> 
> * Section 2 - Subjective testing is mentioned in the first sentence with no
> introduction. Although quite clear, a short definition or a reference to
> literature would have been helpful.
> 
> * Section 2, second to last paragraph - The text is somewhat not well
> formulated. "... even if the group agrees that a particular test is
> important... then the test should be discarded. This ensures that only
> important tests be done; in particular, the tests that are important to
> participants" I understand that the paragraph was meant to underline the
> necessity of selecting tests that participants can/will complete in a timely
> fashion. But the formulation is not great: the group agrees on a particular
> test is important, but if it is not completed it is not important?
> 
> * There are several acronym across the document that could have been expanded
> on first use, or used a reference to the definition: PMF, PSNR, PSNR-HVS-M, CQP
> 
> * Section 3.7 - "This metric is focused on quality degradation due compression
> and rescaling" missing "to"
> 
> * Section 5.2 - It would have been good to explicitly write out here what the
> parenthesis after each test indicates (resolution, bit depth, etc)
> 
> * Section 5.2.2 - "High bit depth" could you quantify more precisely what high
> is here?
> 
> * Section 5.2.4 and 5.2.5 - Does "old version" mean this should be seen as
> deprecated?
> 
> (Please keep my address in the To: field if you want to make sure I see any
> response to this thread)
> 
> Thanks,
> Francesca
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art