Subject: Re: [AVT] Reviews of draft-ietf-avt-multicast-acq-rtcp-xr

From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 21:38:47 -0800

Would you remind me what other text needs fixing? I will address Dong's comments pretty soon in a revision but I would like to get everything *fixed* in the revision so that we can finish the business with this.

Thanks.
-acbegen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 11:10 AM
> To: Dong Hsu (dohsu); [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [AVT] Reviews of draft-ietf-avt-multicast-acq-rtcp-xr
> 
> There will be another version before publication request, because some of the text needs fixing anyway.
> 
> Please discuss and address these in that version, assuming you can resolve in that time.
> 
> regards
> 
> Keith
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> 	From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of dohsu
> 	Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 4:51 PM
> 	To: [email-masked]
> 	Subject: [AVT] Reviews of draft-ietf-avt-multicast-acq-rtcp-xr
> 
> 
> 	The following are the comments on the draft of Multicast Acquisition Report Block Type for RTCP Extended Reports
> [draft-ietf-avt-multicast-ac-rtcp-xr-01]:
> 
> 	1. One of the sentences in Abstract section is a little bit confusing. “One approach to reduce this delay is to use an
> auxiliary unicast RTP session with a retransmission server to receive a burst stream that facilitates rapid acquisition of the
> multicast stream.” You might want to re-word it to make it clear.
> 
> 	2. It could be useful to add a reference for RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Reports (XR) in Abstract section.
> 
> 	3.  At the end of page 3, you might add the phase of “to collect the information” at the end of the sentence of “RTP
> receivers that use a different method … may also use this report.”
> 
> 	4. It will be nice to present the format of the entire MA report block diagram before Section 4.1.
> 
> 	5. At the end of Section 4.2, it states that “the support for extensions is OPTIONAL.”  Since the individual TLVs explain
> which ones are mandatory in which conditions and which are optional, I don’t think we need this sentence.
> 
> 	This document is ready for publication and the comments can be fixed after the IETF last call.
> 
> 	Regards,
> 
> 	-- Dong Hsu
> 	Cisco Systems, Inc
> 	1414 Massachusetts Avenue
> 	Boxborough, MA 01719
> 	(978) 936 - 0010
>