[video-codec] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-netvc-testing-08

[Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

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* Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of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