Dear Miguel, Thanks a lot for your comments.
> Document: draft-ietf-fecframe-simple-rs-04 > Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <[email protected]> > Review Date: 2012-10-17 > IETF LC End Date: 2012-10-22 > > Summary: The document is ready for publication as a standards track RFC, but > has some Nits that should be addressed. > > Major issues: none > > Minor issues: none > > Nits/editorial comments: > > - Section 5.1.1 starts with this sentence: > > The FEC Framework Configuration Information (or FFCI) includes > information that MUST be communicated between the sender and > receiver(s). > > This is not a normative "MUST" that you are specifying. You are merely > describing how another specification has a normative MUST, but it is not of > this document. Therefore, this "MUST" should be replaced by a "need" or > perhaps a "must". I understand. Done. NEW: The FEC Framework Configuration Information (or FFCI) includes information that must be communicated between the sender and receiver(s) [RFC6363]. > - Section 5.1.1.1 reads: > > When SDP is used to communicate the FFCI, this FEC Encoding ID is > carried in the 'encoding-id' parameter. > > Two points here: > a) I am missing a normative MUST, such as "this FEC Encoding ID MUST be > carried..." > b) I guess it would not be such a bad idea to complete the sentence with the > attribute name in SDP and normative reference that defines the attribute and > the parameter. > > Proposal: > > When SDP is used to communicate the FFCI, this FEC Encoding ID MUST be > carried in the 'encoding-id' parameter of the 'fec-repair-flow' > attribute specified in RFC 6364 [RFC6364]. Excellent. This paragraph now reads: NEW: When SDP is used to communicate the FFCI, this FEC Encoding ID MUST be carried in the 'encoding-id' parameter of the 'fec-repair-flow' attribute specified in RFC 6364 [RFC6364]. > - Similarly in Section 5.1.1.2: > > If you agree with this changes, you should do similar changes to Section > 5.1.1.2, the text beginning with "When SDP is used..." Notice also that the > example following this text in Section 5.1.1.2 is misleading because it does > not contain a single SDP line, which is generally considered the atomic > representation element in examples, but just a fraction of it. I suggest to > extend the example to the full a=fec-repair-flow line. Done. And the associated example also illustrates the use of encoding-id=... NEW: When SDP is used to communicate the FFCI, this FEC scheme-specific information MUST be carried in the 'fssi' parameter of the 'fec- repair-flow' attribute, in textual representation as specified in RFC 6364 [RFC6364]. For instance: a=fec-repair-flow: encoding-id=XXX; fssi=E:1400,S:0,m:8 > - Section 8, IANA. Isn't the name of the registry "Reliable Multicast > Transport (RMT) FEC Encoding IDs and FEC Instance IDs"? Or am I looking at > the wrong registry? I think that the "FEC Framework (FECFRAME) FEC Encoding > IDs is one of the registries included under that umbrella of RMT FEC Encoding > IDs. As a reader, I would like to be able to find the right registry without > doubt. Yes, it is one of the registries of the "Reliable Multicast Transport (RMT) FEC Encoding IDs and FEC Instance IDs" registry. It's a bit complex (well, historical in fact). I have clarified. NEW: Values of FEC Encoding IDs are subject to IANA registration. [RFC6363] defines general guidelines on IANA considerations. In particular it defines the "FEC Framework (FECFRAME) FEC Encoding IDs" subregistry of the "Reliable Multicast Transport (RMT) FEC Encoding IDs and FEC Instance IDs" registry, whose values are granted on an IETF Consensus basis. Thanks a lot. Cheers, Vincent, on behalf of the authors _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
