Subject: [AVT] AD review: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-h264-rcdo-06

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2010 13:19:09 +0300

Hi,

as part of a load balancing exercise between Robert and I, I will be
acting as the responsible AD for this draft.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-h264-rcdo/

Below you can find my AD review. As soon as the authors address these
comments (it should be trivial to address them), I will IETF Last Call
this draft.

Thanks,

Gonzalo

The acronyms RTP and RCDO need to be expanded in the title of the
draft. In general, all acronyms need to be expanded on their first
use.

The document refers to [3] as RFC3984bis. Given that [3] is a
normative reference, this document will not be published until [3] is
published as well. So, referring to it as, say, RFCYYYY and then get
the RFC Editor to update the text seems like a better option than
calling it RFC3984bis.

Page 19: section X should be section 9.

Section 9: "although if suitable the usage of SRTP [11] is
recommended". Should that be a normative RECOMMENDED instead?

The draft should have a reference to the SDP spec: RFC 4566.

---

From: Tom Kristensen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 16:50:15 +0200

> comments (it should be trivial to address them), I will IETF Last Call

Great, thanks! I just submitted a new version addressing these
comments as detailed below.

[...]
> draft. In general, all acronyms need to be expanded on their first

RTP kept as is, cf. answer to SVC draft on this list. Other "not
well-known" acronyms are now expanded.

> the RFC Editor to update the text seems like a better option than

Done. We also have to remember syncing the identical parts of the
media subtype definition with draft-ietf-avt-rtp-rfc3984bis-11 when
it's 100% sure this will not change.

> Page 19: section X should be section 9.

Fixed.

> recommended". Should that be a normative RECOMMENDED instead?

Not so sure, so in spirit of draft-ietf-avt-srtp-not-mandatory the
following sentence is used instead:

"Usage of data origin authentication and data integrity protection of
at least the RTP packet is RECOMMENDED, for example by use of the
Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP) <xref target="RFC3711"/>."

> The draft should have a reference to the SDP spec: RFC 4566.

Yes, now referenced in the Introduction section.

-- Tom

-- 
# Cisco
## [email-masked]  |  http://www.tandberg.com
### http://folk.uio.no/tomkri/

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 09:54:04 +0300

Hi Tom,

thanks for putting this new revision rogether. The next step is for me
to start its IETF LC. I will do that as soon as I have a minute.

Cheers,

Gonzalo