Subject: [AVT] Another review of enhanced CRTP

From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson (EPL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 10:22:02 +0100

Hi all,

I was asked to review the ECRTP draft, and have some minor inputs
that might be useful to take into account. Overall, I think the
document is fine, and with one exception, all my comments are of
a pure editorial nature. I am especially satisfied with the way
the "IP-ID versus Twice" issue was resolved.

1) Let's start with the only technical comment, which is just a
   suggestion. Why not let the HDRCKSUM (section 2.2) cover also
   the IP ID for IPv4, in addition to the IP-pseudo header, the
   UDP header, and the first 12 octets of UDP data (e.g. RTP). By 
   including the IP ID, the concerns about using Twice (section
   2.3, 5th paragraph) would only apply to IPv4 with enabled
   UDP checksum (if the HDRCKSUM is enabled). 

   This is just a suggestion, and a question whether you have 
   considered that option. Let us know your opinions.

2) In section 2, first bullet, I think it would be good to
   clarify "RTP values". Are you addressing all RTP fields, or
   just a subset, and in that case, which fields are addressed.
   Please clarify that.

3) In section 2.2, second paragraph, it could be useful to
   indicate that a disabled (set to zero) UDP checksum is a case
   only possible for IPv4.

4) In section 3, should there be a reference to the updated 
   RFC2509? What is the status of that document anyway?

5) Finally some formatting comments:
5a) There are no page beaks (form feed) in the document
5b) I am missing headers, footers, and especially page numbers
5c) The expiration date is missing at the last page
5d) The indentation is only "correct" in sections 3, 6, and 7

Otherwise I think the document is fine and fully support the idea
of submitting it (with correction) for PS.

Cheers,
/Lars-Erik

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt