Subject: [AVT] AD review: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-svc-22

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2010 15:53:12 +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-svc/

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 SVC need to be expanded in the title. All acronyms
in the draft need to be expanded on their first use.

Section 1.2.2 has a few non-normative statements such as "SST should
be used...". This normatively specified at a later point in the
document (Section 4.4). If Section 1 is meant to be a non-normative
overview of the specification, the draft should say so somewhere.

Page 80. When specifying behavior beyond RFC 3264, the draft should
use normative language. However, when specifying behavior that is
already specified in RFC 3264, the draft should not use normative
language. For example: "the offer SHOULD also be used in the answer,
as specified in [RFC3264]". This issue also appears in other sections
in the document (e.g., in page 85). Simply s/SHOULD/should/ would
resolve the issue, for instance.

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 14:04:38 +0100

> in the draft need to be expanded on their first use.

Unless their policy has changed recently, RTP is one of the few well- 
known acronyms the RFC editor allows to be used without expansion in  
document titles.

-- 
Colin Perkins
http://csperkins.org/

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 12:01:20 +0300

Hi Colin,

> known acronyms the RFC editor allows to be used without expansion in  

yes, it is:

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/abbrev.expansion.txt

Anyway, for all other acronyms in the draft, the following rule (also
taken from the link above) applies:

"Editorial guidelines for the RFC series generally require expansion of
these abbreviations on first occurrence in a title, in an abstract, or
in the body of the document."

Thanks,

Gonzalo

---

From: Ye-Kui Wang <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 04:35:34 -0400

Hi Gonzalo,

Thanks for your AD reivew. I have just submitted -23 wherein all your
comments were addressed.

> The acronyms RTP and SVC need to be expanded in the title. 
> All acronyms in the draft need to be expanded on their first use.
> 

'SVC' expended in the title. 'RTP' was not, per your discussion with Colin.
I did not find any other acronyms that are not expanded on their first use.

> Section 1.2.2 has a few non-normative statements such as "SST 
> should be used...". This normatively specified at a later 
> point in the document (Section 4.4). If Section 1 is meant to 
> be a non-normative overview of the specification, the draft 
> should say so somewhere.
> 

Done, the last sentence before section 1.1 has been changed to: 
   A non-normative overview of the SVC codec and the payload is given
   in the remainder of this section.

> Page 80. When specifying behavior beyond RFC 3264, the draft 
> should use normative language. However, when specifying 
> behavior that is already specified in RFC 3264, the draft 
> should not use normative language. For example: "the offer 
> SHOULD also be used in the answer, as specified in 
> [RFC3264]". This issue also appears in other sections in the 
> document (e.g., in page 85). Simply s/SHOULD/should/ would 

Done. I systematically checked all 'SHOULD', and did not find any other
places with this issue.

BR, YK

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 14:07:12 +0300

Hi,

thanks for revising the draft. I have just requested its IETF LC.

Cheers,

Gonzalo