Hi, Roni — thanks for your review. Responses inline.
On Jun 1, 2017, at 2:53 AM, Roni Even
<ron(_dot_)even(_dot_)tlv(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review result: Ready with Issues
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-avtext-lrr-??
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: 2017-05-31
IETF LC End Date: 2017-06-08
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
Summary:
The document is ready with issues for a standard track RFC
Major issues:
Minor issues:
1. Can you specify both TTID and TLID in the same FCI.
Syntactically, they must both occur.
If you mean can you request an upgrade in both at once, yes; I’ve added text to
clarify this.
2. What is the meaning of value 0 for TTID and TLID - TID or LID =0 in
frame marking draft means base layer if there is scalability.
This relates to the previous question.
I’m not sure I understand this question.
I’ve added text that if C=1, at least one of <TTID, TLID> MUST be greater than
<CTID, CLID>, and both MUST be greater than or equal to their counterpart, so
the LRR is actually requesting a layer upgrade. Is that what you were asking
about?
3. What would an FCI with both TTID and TLID equal 0 mean.
It means you want a refresh of the base temporal/spatial layer, only.
Nits/editorial comments:
1. Section 3 "an Real-Time Transport Control Protocol" should be "a
Real…".
Colin pointed out that it should say “an RTP Control Protocol” anyway.
2. In section 3 " [RFC5104](Section 3.5.1)" there is a link to section
3.5.1 but it does not work.
xml2rfc doesn’t have any way to link to sections of other documents, so the
“(Section 3.5.1)” part is just a comment.
I think the internet-draft tooling may have thought I was trying to link to a
non-existent section 3.5.1 of this document, but that’s outside my control.
3. In section 3.2 "(see section Section 2.1)" section appears twice.
Fixed.