Re: [xrblock] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Mon, 17 March 2014 02:32 UTC

From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: "Alissa Cooper (alcoop)" <alcoop@cisco.com>, "xrblock@ietf.org" <xrblock@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: AD evaluation: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal
Thread-Index: AQHPP7jeQLFyC6GPXEyrrGn0760LQZrkkhJw
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 02:31:57 +0000
Message-ID: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA845093E2@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <CF47680B.25B70%alcoop@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CF47680B.25B70%alcoop@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xrblock/8Cnq42wX3N4qjSpHOr4YdodQOQE
Subject: Re: [xrblock] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal
Precedence: list

Hi,Alissa:
Thanks for your valuable review. See my reply inline below.

Regards!
-Qin
-----Original Message-----
From: Alissa Cooper (alcoop) [mailto:alcoop@cisco.com] 
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 3:09 AM
To: xrblock@ietf.org; draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal@tools.ietf.org
Subject: AD evaluation: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal

I have reviewed this draft in preparation for IETF LC.  Overall, it's in
good shape, and I have requested the LC.  A couple of minor comments to
address with any LC comments:

== In Section 3.2 and Section 4.2, I have a few issues with this text:

"Note that the enhancement method (plc =3 )for packet loss
      concealment offers an improved audio quality and or a better
      robustness against packet losses [G.711] and is equivalent to
      enhanced in section 4.7.1 of [RFC3611],"

I assume "and or" is supposed to be "and".

[Qin]: Agree.

Also, enhanced does not appear in section 4.7.1 of RFC3611. Did you mean
4.7.6?

[Qin]: Good catch, will fix this.

Is there text missing off the end, or is the comma that ends the sentence
supposed to be a period?

[Qin]: Correct, it is a typo.

== In Section 4.2, I have an issue with this text:

"Buffer adjustment-type concealment
      SHALL not cause Concealed Seconds to be incremented, with the
      following exception.  An implementation MAY cause Concealed
      Seconds to be incremented for 'emergency' buffer adjustments made
      during talk spurts."

SHALL not (with "not" in lowercase) is not appropriate usage of 2119
language (it should be SHALL NOT). But it also seems to me that SHALL NOT
is inappropriate in this case, because there is an exceptional
circumstance when concealed seconds should be incremented. So I think this
should actually be SHOULD NOT.

[Qin]: You are right.

== Sections 3 and 4 refer to NLS and NCS as the placeholders for the block
type numbers to be assigned by IANA, but in section 6.1 they are listed as
LCB and CSB, respectively. The same acronyms should be used throughout.

[Qin]: Agree, thanks.

Thanks,
Alissa

[xrblock] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-… Alissa Cooper
Re: [xrblock] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-xrblock-r… Qin Wu