Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw-08

"Peter Yee" <> Wed, 12 December 2012 05:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAF1D21F8617; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 21:46:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YzQ1eOKk6GSd; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 21:46:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65A1221F886B; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 21:45:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from spectre ([]) by with id aVlQ1k0011huGat01VlQyp; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 22:45:24 -0700
From: Peter Yee <>
Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw-08
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 21:45:23 -0800
Message-ID: <002a01cdd82b$e1a913c0$a4fb3b40$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: Ac3YJzTUtnrb4hGMSyOFNd5zviBrVQ==
Content-Language: en-us
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:26:48 -0800
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 05:46:23 -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-avt-rtp-evrc-nw-08
Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review Date: Dec-11-2012
IETF LC End Date: Dec-11-2012
IESG Telechat date: Unknown

Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has a few nits
that should be fixed before publication. [Ready with nits.]

This Standards Track draft specifies RTP payload formats for use with the
EVRC-NW.  It contains IANA registration requests.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:

Section 1, 2nd sentence: decide whether you want to capitalize the packet
format names (Header-Free, Interleaved/Bundled) and then them use
consistently throughout the document.  RFC 3558 uses upper case names
mostly, but is not quite a paragon of consistency.

Section 4, 3rd sentence: change "zero bit" to "zero-bit".

Section 4, table, 1st row: insert a space after "Blank"  and adjust spacing
to maintain alignment of the columns.  Change "0 bit" to "0 bits".

Section 5, 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence: change "8kHz" to "8 kHz".  Change
"16kHz" to "16 kHz".

Section 6, 3rd numbered item, 2nd sentence: change "identfication" to

Section 7, 1st sentence: change ";" to ",".

Section 9.1.2: change "Interoperability considertaions" to "Interoperability

Section 9.1.3, mode-set-recv paragraph, 5th sentence: change "narroband" to

Section 9.1.3: change " Interoperability considertaions" to "
Interoperability considerations".

Section 10, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: delete the comma after

Section 10, numbered list: I'm not sure why this is a numbered list since
the preceding paragraph makes no direct link to it.  Consider demoting the
list items to individual paragraphs.

Section 10, 1st numbered item, 1st sentence: consider rewriting "inform the
capability of " as "advertise the capability for" or "inform the capability

Section 10, 2nd numbered item, 1st sentence: rewrite "inform the" as
"indicate a".

Section 11, 2nd paragraph, 4th sentence: change "potentially-high" to
"potentially high"

Section 11, 2nd paragraph, last sentence: change "is used" to "be used".

Section 14, 2nd bullet item, 2nd sentence: capitalize "may" and "should".

Section 14, 3rd bullet item: change "receive only" to "receive-only".

I like using the serial comma (the one before "and" in a list of 3 of more
items) for clarity and to reduce confusion, but did not submit the list of
missing commas for this document -- there are a few.  Let me know if you