Subject: [Gen-art] Gen Art review of draft-ietf-avt-rtcpssm-18

From: Avshalom Houri <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 18:56:41 +0300

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-rtcpssm-18
Reviewer: Avshalom Houri
Review Date: 2009-06-04
IETF LC End Date: 2009-06-05
IESG Telechat date: (not known)

Summary: The document is ready for publication as a Proposes Standard

Major issues: none

Minor issues: Typos and some formatting

Line 843
   provide a consistent behavior in the advancement if time (similar
Should be:
   provide a consistent behavior in the advancement of time (similar

Line 1249
     long as the those entities receiving and processing RTCP
Should be:
     long as those entities receiving and processing RTCP

Line 1917:
     eagerly change their own SSRC eagerly or unnecessarily.
Should be:
     change their own SSRC unnecessarily.
Lines 2361-2362
   attack or by mistake, e.g., an IP address configuration (e.g.,
   typing) error, could directly create a denial of service attack
--- Need to rephrase the e.g.s

Lines 2738-2742:
the operation of RTP. For RTP-compliant receivers that do not
understand the unicast mechanisms, the RTCP traffic may still reach
the group, in the event that an ASM distribution network is used, in
which case there may be some duplication of traffic due to the
reflection channel, but this should be ignored. It is anticipated,
--- Sentence seems too long.

Section 16.4 - Needs a  bit of formatting.

--Avshalom

---

From: Joerg Ott <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 20:50:01 +0300

Saw it now.  Thanks, Gunnar.

Joerg

---

From: Joerg Ott <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 20:50:44 +0300

Sorry for the previous message, clicked on the wrong one.
Please ignore.

Joerg

---

From: Joerg Ott <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 13:16:59 +0300

Hi,

thanks a lot.  We will do these edits and fix two more nits we came
across.  Will point these out after we did the resubmission.

Joerg