Pete, Thank you for the review!
This document is now coming to the telechat (6 months later!) and I just wanted to let you know that while I did not see a response to your e-mail, the nits seem to have been taken into account. Jari On Mar 28, 2013, at 11:38 AM, Pete McCann <[email protected]> wrote: > 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-tsvwg-byte-pkt-congest-09 > Reviewer: Peter McCann > Review Date: 2013-03-27 > IETF LC End Date: > IESG Telechat date: 2013-03-28 > > Summary: Ready > > Major issues: none > > Minor issues: > > e.g. at a RTCP transcoder > Did you mean "at an RTP transcoder"? > > Nits/editorial comments: > > Section 2.3: > useful as the the IETF > SHOULD BE: > useful as the IETF > > References: > [I-D.ietf-avtcore-ecn-for-rtp] > Change to: RFC 6679 > (nb: I assume the authors have been in communication > with the 6679 authors and that the two documents are > in agreement) > > Section 4.1.1: > give a at least one > SHOULD BE: > give at least one > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
