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

"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <> Thu, 22 October 2015 08:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A83F1B2F29 for <>; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 01:15:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.909
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AFMUrh1faQ2s for <>; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 01:15:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58E341B2F24 for <>; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 01:15:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,634,1432612800"; d="scan'208,217";a="125315658"
Received: from unknown (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP; 22 Oct 2015 04:15:47 -0400
X-OutboundMail_SMTP: 1
Received: from unknown (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 22 Oct 2015 04:15:46 -0400
Received: from ([fe80::6db7:b0af:8480:c126]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 04:15:45 -0400
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <>
To: "Huangyihong (Rachel)" <>, "Huangyihong (Rachel)" <>
Thread-Topic: nits in draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc-02
Thread-Index: AdEMCc4WzzQohZhGQ1KoATeWxoftYAAaiQagAAtbQKA=
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 08:15:45 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA5CB588F9AZFFEXMB04globa_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: xrblock <>
Subject: Re: [xrblock] nits in draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc-02
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Metric Blocks for use with RTCP's Extended Report Framework working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 08:15:54 -0000

Hi Rachel,

Thanks for the quick turnout. Please submit - you will probably get a message from the Submission tool that submissions will be accepted only after Monday, November 2nd.

Alissa - will you approve the submission (and then we can submit the document to the IESG), or do you prefer to wait until the re-opening of the I-D submissions on the Monday of the IETF meeting?

Thanks and Regards,


From: Huangyihong (Rachel) []
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 5:49 AM
To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Cc: xrblock
Subject: RE: nits in draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc-02

Hi Dan,

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


From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) []
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<> :

  ** 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

  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,