Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-wb-03

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 18:06:35 -0500

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-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

---

From: "Desineni, Harikishan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:10:13 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Campbell [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 4:07 PM
> To: General Area Review Team; Cullen Jennings; Desineni, Harikishan;
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-wb-03
> 

RFC 4788 is the legacy version. I'll fix this.

> sometimes there are two. I did not notice this elsewhere.

OK

> s/"EVRCB, EVRCB0"/"EVRCB and EVRCB0"
OK

> s/attributs/attributes

OK

About to submit version -04

Thanks,
Hari