I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-wb-03
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2007-10-18
IETF LC End Date: 2007-10-22
Summary:
This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that
should be fixed before publication.
Comments:
I found the draft well written and easy to understand. I only had one
substantive nit; the rest are editorial only:
Substantive:
Section 17, 11th example (I think):
"Example offer answer exchanges for interoperability between legacy
(RFC XXXX) and updated EVRC-B(RFC 4788) implementations:"
Are the RFC references reversed? RFC XXX is the updated, not the
legacy, version, right?
Editorial:
Section 1:
Odd spacing between sentences. Sometime there are no spaces,
sometimes there are two. I did not notice this elsewhere.
Section 3, second paragraph (Personal pet-peeve; feel free to ignore.):
Constructs like "...defined in [5]." create extra work for the
reader in the form of page flipping. " Things like "defined in <doc-
name> [5]", or "...defined in [mnemonic symbol] " are much more
friendly.
Section 9, first paragraph:
s/"EVRCB, EVRCB0"/"EVRCB and EVRCB0"
Section 10, title:
s/attributs/attributes
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
