Hi, Alex: Sorry for late reply. Thank for your valuable review. please see my feedback inline.
Regards! -Qin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexey Melnikov" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 1:23 AM Subject: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv-03.txt >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 wait for direction from your document shepherd > or AD before posting a new version of the draft. > > Document: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv-03.txt > Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov > Review Date: 23 July 2012 > IETF LC End Date: 23 July 2012 > IESG Telechat date: N/A > > Summary: Almost Ready > > Major issues: None > > Minor issues: > > In Section 4: > > pdvtype = "pdv=" 0 ; MAPDV2 ITU-T G.1020 > / 1 ; 2-point PDV ITU-T Y.1540 > > Firstly, I think you meant "0" and "1" above (you are missing quotes). [Qin]: You are right. > Secondly, this doesn't allow for future pdvtype registrations, so you > should be using something like 1*2DIGIT here (with a comment that value > 0-15 are valid), or something more specific. [Qin]: Okay,I propose to do the followingchange: OLD TEXT: " pdvtype = "pdv=" 0 ; MAPDV2 ITU-T G.1020 / 1 ; 2-point PDV ITU-T Y.1540 " NEW TEXT: " pdvtype = "pdv=" "0" ; MAPDV2 ITU-T G.1020 / "1" ; 2-point PDV ITU-T Y.1540 /1*2DIGIT ;Value 2~15 are valid ; and reserved for future ; use. " > > The document creates a new registry with "Specification Required", yet > the shepherding write-up says that the document doesn't create any > registry with Expert Review (question 18). So one of the two is > incorrect, I don't know which one. [Qin]: My understanding is the former. > Nits/editorial comments: None > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
