Hi Francis, Thank you very much for the summary. I will put them together with other changes we would like to make for the RFC editors.
Thanks, Adam Francis Dupont wrote: > I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) > reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see > http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > you may receive. > > > Document: draft-ietf-avt-ulp-21.txt > Reviewer: Francis Dupont > Review Date: 2007-03-15 > IETF LC End Date: 2007-04-03 > IESG Telechat date: unknown > > Summary: Ready > > Comments: I have only a few minor editorial comments (which should be handled > by the RFC editor): > - 5 page 8 (section title): the usage is to put no space before a colon ":" > in English. BTW I believe the best should be: > "5. Uneven Level Protection (ULP)" > > - 5 page 8: In stead -> Instead ? > > - 7.3 page 11: in > "The P recovery field, the X recovery field, the CC recovery field, > the M recovery field, and the PT recovery field are obtained via the > protection operation applied to the P, X, CC, M, and PT values of > the media packets associated with the FEC packet." > it should be fine to add the P, X, ... and PT are names of RTP fields. > > - 11 page 28: a word seems to miss in > "The changing of encryption keys is another crucial issue needs to be > addressed." > > - 17 pages 39 and 40: I know where the problem (again) comes from so > I don't expect a solution for this document in particular: > * to put a status like "(Proposed Standard)" is not standard > * for a BCP the BCP number should be added > * RFC 3388 has no status (it is right but not as the others?) > So the RFC editor will have to reformat the references... > > Regards > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > PS: I have not checked all the numerical examples (not a job for a human :-). > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
