IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [xrblock] nits in draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc-02

"Huangyihong (Rachel)" <rachel.huang@huawei.com> Thu, 22 October 2015 02:49 UTC

Return-Path: <rachel.huang@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 679C91ACE3D for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 19:49:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ctr2YkNQXbIo for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 19:49:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA2151ACE3A for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 19:49:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BZD04590; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 02:49:15 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML408-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.39) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 03:49:13 +0100
Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.75]) by nkgeml408-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.39]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 10:49:06 +0800
From: "Huangyihong (Rachel)" <rachel.huang@huawei.com>
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
Thread-Topic: nits in draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc-02
Thread-Index: AdEMCc4WzzQohZhGQ1KoATeWxoftYAAaiQag
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 02:49:04 +0000
Message-ID: <51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB864447CE@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA5CB57A21@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com>
In-Reply-To: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA5CB57A21@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.136.79.189]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_004_51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB864447CEnkgeml501mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xrblock/gMCWEuDoiITN0NM6Yclf_Jo5pn0>
Cc: xrblock <xrblock@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [xrblock] nits in draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc-02
X-BeenThere: xrblock@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Metric Blocks for use with RTCP's Extended Report Framework working group discussion list <xrblock.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/xrblock>, <mailto:xrblock-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/xrblock/>
List-Post: <mailto:xrblock@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xrblock-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock>, <mailto:xrblock-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 02:49:33 -0000

Hi Dan,

Sorry for omitting these nits. Attached is the new version, which passes the idnits check.

BR,
Rachel

From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 10:07 PM
To: Huangyihong (Rachel)
Cc: xrblock
Subject: nits in draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc-02


Hi Rachel,

Running idnits with draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc-02 results in a number of errors and warnings:



Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC7294], [RFC3611]), which
     it shouldn't.  Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the
     documents in question.


  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ** The document contains RFC2119-like boilerplate, but doesn't seem to
     mention RFC 2119.  The boilerplate contains a reference [KEYWORDS], but
     that reference does not seem to mention RFC 2119 either.

  -- The document date (September 11, 2015) is 40 days in the past.  Is this
     intentional?


  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Missing Reference: 'RFC3611' is mentioned on line 422, but not defined

  == Missing Reference: 'RFC3550' is mentioned on line 108, but not defined

  == Missing Reference: 'KEYWORDS' is mentioned on line 135, but not defined

  == Missing Reference: 'RFC6709' is mentioned on line 375, but not defined

  == Missing Reference: 'RFC3711' is mentioned on line 413, but not defined

  == Missing Reference: 'RFC5124' is mentioned on line 415, but not defined

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 7201

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 7202


     Summary: 4 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).





1.       References in the Abstract section need to be avoided

2.       Missing references - RFC 3611, 3550, 2119 (KEYWORDS), 6709, 3711, 5124 - please add

3.       RFC 7201, 7202 are downrefs - I suggest to move these to Informational References

If you have time please do the edits and send me the revised I-D. I will ask Alissa for a special approval to post, so that we can have the document submitted by IETF 94.

Thanks and Regards,

Dan

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email