Subject: [MMUSIC] SDP Directorate: Review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-post-repair-loss-count-03

From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 13:32:00 +0000

I am the assigned SDP directorate reviewer for this draft. For background on the SDP directorate, please see the FAQ at

http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/sdp.html

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Summary:
- There are some statements that need to be modified slightly. See below.
- There are quite a few grammatical/capitalization/spelling errors. I listed the ones I caught. Please proofread the document.
- The registry and SDP usage seem correct.

Comments:

- Intro: s/RTCP SR/RR/RTCP sender and receiver reports (SR and RR)

- Intro: s/cumulative number of packet lost/cumulative number of packets lost  

- Rather than referring to RFC 5109, I prefer you to refer to FEC Framework (RFC 6363). 

- Intro, end of 1st parag: "at the cost of higher overhead": For someone who does now know 5725, this statement is confusing. Higher compared to what?

- Intro, 2nd parag: 
s/range of RTP application/range of RTP applications
s/sequence number range inconsistent/sequence number range inconsistency

- Intro, 2nd parag: "lost after applying one or more loss repair mechanisms": Actually, this should say something like "lost after applying all available loss repair mechanisms as a lost packet should not be reported in your report if it can still be recovered.

- Use of 2119 keywords in the intro is not allowed AFAIK. Refrain from using them. 

- Similarly, the use of lower case 2119 keywords after introduction is not encouraged. So, refrain from such use as well.

- RFCs 4588 and 5109 (or 6363) should be informative not normative.