Hi Sean, Thanks for the review. See inline.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Sean Turner [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 9:17 AM > To: General Area Review Team; > [email protected] > Subject: GEN-Art review of draft-ietf-fecframe-dvb-al-fec-03 > > 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-fecframe-dvb-al-fec-03.txt > Reviewer: Sean Turner > Review Date: 2009-12-08 > IETF LC End Date: 2009-12-14 > IESG Telechat date: unknown > > Summary: This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described > in the review. > > Purpose of the ID: I don't think it's clear what the purpose of the ID > is from reading the abstract/introduction. The abstract says "This > document describes how one can implement the DVB-IPTV AL-FEC protocol by > using the 1-D interleaved parity code and Raptor code that have already > been specified in separate documents." The introduction says "This This is the purpose of this draft. > specification covers several areas related to the transmission of MPEG2 > transport stream-based services over IP networks" and "This document Here, "this" is referring to [ETSI-TS-102-034v1.3.1] not this draft. > shows how this configuration may be communicated out-of-band in the > Session Description Protocol (SDP) [RFC4566]." Are these the same or Here, "this" refers to this draft. > should what's in the intro be copied in to the abstract? I thought the meaning of "this" was clear in the context as each part is in a separate paragraph. But, we can make this more explicit. > Intro 2nd pargagraph: Is the ID based on the ETSI v1.3.1 or on the > bluebook or on the v1.4.1? If it's either of the last two and they are > works in progress, then you're pinned on them completing. Also, the We refer to both of it. And they are both published. For 1.4.1, we need to update the reference to: http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/102000_102099/102034/01.04.01_60/ts_102034v010401p.pdf > last sentence says there are changes to the AL-FEC protcol so I think > you need to be clear what version you've based this ID on. I don't get > that from the intro. The ID describes what one needs to do to be compliant with either DVB spec. In DVB, 1.4.1 did not obsolete 1.3.1. So, both may co-exist. > Security Considerations: Should probably change the security > considerations to say something along the lines of "this specification > adds no new security considerations to the AL-FEC protocol" or something > like that. Sounds good. > Question: > > I assume that the absence of the "conventions used in this document" > section was done on purpose because there are no MUST, SHOULD, etc. words. Yes. Since we don’t wanna look like imposing new rules on existing DVB specs, the WG decided to do so. > NITS: > > 1. Abstract: Spell out DVB on first occurrence. Will do. > 2. Intro 4th paragraph 1st sentence: Remove "normative"; is there an > informative AL-FEC protocol? Also sounds good. Let me know if you have further comments. We will do a revision once the LC completes. -acbegen > spt _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
