Hi, Roni — thanks for your review. Responses inline. > On Jun 1, 2017, at 2:53 AM, Roni Even <[email protected]> wrote: > > Reviewer: Roni Even > Review result: Ready with Issues > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-avtext-lrr-?? > Reviewer: Roni Even > Review Date: 2017-05-31 > IETF LC End Date: 2017-06-08 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: > The document is ready with issues for a standard track RFC > Major issues: > > Minor issues: > > 1. Can you specify both TTID and TLID in the same FCI.
Syntactically, they must both occur. If you mean can you request an upgrade in both at once, yes; I’ve added text to clarify this. > 2. What is the meaning of value 0 for TTID and TLID - TID or LID =0 in > frame marking draft means base layer if there is scalability. > This relates to the previous question. I’m not sure I understand this question. I’ve added text that if C=1, at least one of <TTID, TLID> MUST be greater than <CTID, CLID>, and both MUST be greater than or equal to their counterpart, so the LRR is actually requesting a layer upgrade. Is that what you were asking about? > 3. What would an FCI with both TTID and TLID equal 0 mean. It means you want a refresh of the base temporal/spatial layer, only. > Nits/editorial comments: > > 1. Section 3 "an Real-Time Transport Control Protocol" should be "a > Real…". Colin pointed out that it should say “an RTP Control Protocol” anyway. > 2. In section 3 " [RFC5104](Section 3.5.1)" there is a link to section > 3.5.1 but it does not work. xml2rfc doesn’t have any way to link to sections of other documents, so the “(Section 3.5.1)” part is just a comment. I think the internet-draft tooling may have thought I was trying to link to a non-existent section 3.5.1 of this document, but that’s outside my control. > 3. In section 3.2 "(see section Section 2.1)" section appears twice. Fixed. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
