Re: [secdir] Review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-12

Hi Donald,

sure, that is what I also do in my own documents.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

On 28/06/2013 1:18 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
> I believe it is always better to bend over backwards, if need be, to
> make a document clear. If someone had requested it, I would spell out
> any acronym in a draft of mine, not matter how "well known" -- IETF,
> IP, TCP, whatever. I believe the correct response to a request to
> spell out an acronym on first use is always to simply agree with that
> request, as in "RTP (Real-time Transport Protocol)".
> 
> Thanks,
> Donald
> =============================
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
>  155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
>  d3e3e3@gmail.com
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo
> <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> note that RTP is one of the well-known abbreviations that do not need
>> expansion:
>>
>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/abbrev.expansion.txt
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Gonzalo
>>
>> On 26/06/2013 12:46 PM, Qin Wu wrote:
>>> Hi,Shawn:
>>> Thank for your comments, my reply is inline below.
>>>
>>> Regards!
>>> -Qin
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Shawn M Emery [mailto:shawn.emery@oracle.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 4:12 PM
>>> To: secdir@ietf.org
>>> Cc: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb.all@tools.ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-12
>>>
>>>
>>> I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
>>> ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.
>>> These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security
>>> area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these
>>> comments just like any other last call comments.
>>>
>>> This internet-draft specifies a RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report
>>> (XR) Block for data on jitter buffer configuration and performance.
>>>
>>> The security considerations section does exist and states that the new block
>>> data does not introduce any additional security concerns than those stated
>>> in the base XR spec, RFC 3611.  I believe this to be an accurate assertion.
>>>
>>> General comments:
>>>
>>> I found the draft slightly hard to read, as the terminology and abbreviations
>>> used are not expanded.  For example, the abstract has "RTP", but never expands
>>> the abbreviation.
>>>
>>> [Qin]; RTP is abbreviation of  "A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications" and defined
>>> In the basic RTP protocol specification [RFC3550], it is the basic atom we are used
>>> in the context of this draft and can not be decomposed.For other term and abbreviation,
>>> I will check and fix that, thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>> Editorial comments:
>>>
>>> s/[RFC6390]and/[RFC6390] and/
>>>
>>> [Qin]:okay.Thanks!
>>>
>>> Shawn.
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> secdir mailing list
>> secdir@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir
>> wiki: http://tools.ietf.org/area/sec/trac/wiki/SecDirReview