Re: [rmcat] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc-06

["Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the review and the nit. We will address these in the next version or as editor comments!

Mirja


> Am 11.09.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Matthew Miller <[e-mail]>:
> 
> Reviewer: Matthew Miller
> 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-rmcat-coupled-cc-06
> Reviewer: Matthew A. Miller
> Review Date:  2017-09-11
> IETF LC End Date: 2017-08-28
> IESG Telechat date: 2017-09-14
> 
> Summary:
> 
> This document is ready to be published as Experimental; I have some nits
> below that addressing them would help with the readability.
> 
> Major issues:  NONE
> 
> Minor issues:  NONE
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> * In Section 2. "Definitions", the second sentence detailing the term
> "Flow" is awkward.  I think "or" can be added between "connection," and
> "an RTP stream" to correct it?
> 
>  """
>  It could, for example, be a transport layer connection, or an RTP
>  stream [RFC7656], whether or not this RTP stream is multiplexed
>  onto an RTP session with other RTP streams.
>  """
> 
> * In Section 4. "Architectural overview", the last paragraph has an
> awkwardly-phrased sentence.  I suggest the following sentence be changed from:
>  """
>  It does, for instance, not define how many bits must be used to represent
>  FSIs, or in which way the entities communicate.
>  """
> 
>  to the following:
>  """
>  It does not, for instance, define how many bits must be used to represent
>  FSIs, or in which way the entities communicate.
>  """
> 
>