Thanks for the review. In 3.3, to null the grammar ambiguity, I propose to change the end of that paragraph to "...in the vicinity of a leap second."
In 5, I'll remove "the". RFC 3550 just refers to these as "sender reports." The leap-second draft mostly uses this terminology. There is one instance of "RTCP sender report" and the one "RTP sender reports" you mention. I propose to change all to "sender report" (or "sender reports" as appropriate). Kevin Gross +1-303-447-0517 Media Network Consultant AVA Networks - www.AVAnw.com <http://www.avanw.com/> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Ben Campbell <[email protected]> wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > you may receive. > > Document: > draft-ietf-avtcore-leap-second-06 > Reviewer: Ben Campbell > Review Date: 2013-12-6 > IETF LC End Date: 2013-12-9 > > Summary: The draft is ready for publication as a standards track RFC > > Major issues: None > > Minor issues: None > > Nits/editorial comments: > > -- 3.3, last paragraph: > > should "second" be "seconds"? > > -- 5, last paragraph: "the a warping technique" > > extra article. > > -- 5.1, title: > > Should that say _RTCP_ Sender Reports? >
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
