I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-avtext-rams-scenarios-04
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: Apr-27-2012
IETF LC End Date: Not known
IESG Telechat date: May-10-2012
Summary: This draft is ready as an Informational.
Major issues: 0
Minor issues: 0
Nits/editorial comments: 5
Nits/editorials:
- S1: For readability, I would suggest the following change:
OLD:
... In scenarios where multiple RAMS sessions, each initiated
with an individual RAMS Request message to a different feedback
target, will be simultaneously run by an RTP receiver, they need to
be coordinated.
NEW:
... Close coordination is required for multiple RAMS sessions
simultaneously started by an RTP server, where each session
is initiated with an individual RAMS Request message to a different
feedback target.
- S2, second line: the use of the word "somewhow" just seems
wishy-washy here. Instead, I think it is better to say "... that
are in some manner associated with each other."
- S3.1: Instead of saying "We run ..." and "we want to ..." better
to say that "An individual RAMS sesson is run for each of the RTP
streams that requires rapid acquisition."
- S3.4, same problem: instead of saying "we have only one RTP
stream..." better to say "there is only one RTP stream ..."
- S6: Probably better to say that there are no new security attacks
made possible by the this draft, however, security considerations of
RFC6285 still apply. Or something to that effect.
Thanks!
- vijay
--
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / [email protected]
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
