[xrblock] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc-05: (with COMMENT)

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc-05: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

(Note that there was a post IETF LC IPR declaration. We should discuss
whether we need to re-run the last call. I think Alissa is on top of
this, so I did not make this a DISCUSS)

Otherwise, I have a few minor comments:

- 4: "The report block MUST be sent in conjunction with the information
from the Measurement Information Block [RFC6776]. "

"MUST be sent in conjunction" is ambiguous. I think you mean that, if the
LC block is sent, the Measurement Information Block MUST also be sent.

=== Editorial===
- 1, 2nd paragraph:
Please expand QoE on first mention.
Also, I think there's a cut-paste or edit error in the last sentence:
OLD:
     Evaluating error concealment is important in the circumstance in
estimating the subjective impact of impairments.
NEW:
     Evaluating error concealment is important for estimating the
subjective impact of impairments.

-4:, 1st paragraph:
There are several instances of "this metric block" where the antecedent
for "this" is not clear. I think they all refer to the loss concealment
block. I suggest changing most or all instances of "this metric block" to
"the loss concealment block."