Subject: [Gen-art] GEN-Art review of draft-ietf-fecframe-dvb-al-fec-03

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 09:17:05 -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-fecframe-dvb-al-fec-03.txt
Reviewer: Sean Turner
Review Date: 2009-12-08
IETF LC End Date: 2009-12-14
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described 
in the review.

Purpose of the ID:  I don't think it's clear what the purpose of the ID 
is from reading the abstract/introduction.  The abstract says "This 
document describes how one can implement the DVB-IPTV AL-FEC protocol by 
using the 1-D interleaved parity code and Raptor code that have already 
been specified in separate documents."  The introduction says "This 
specification covers several areas related to the transmission of MPEG2 
transport stream-based services over IP networks" and "This document 
shows how this configuration may be communicated out-of-band in the 
Session Description Protocol (SDP) [RFC4566]." Are these the same or 
should what's in the intro be copied in to the abstract?

Intro 2nd pargagraph: Is the ID based on the ETSI v1.3.1 or on the 
bluebook or on the v1.4.1?  If it's either of the last two and they are 
works in progress, then you're pinned on them completing.  Also, the 
last sentence says there are changes to the AL-FEC protcol so I think 
you need to be clear what version you've based this ID on.  I don't get 
that from the intro.

Security Considerations: Should probably change the security 
considerations to say something along the lines of "this specification 
adds no new security considerations to the AL-FEC protocol" or something 
like that.

Question:

I assume that the absence of the "conventions used in this document" 
section was done on purpose because there are no MUST, SHOULD, etc. words.

NITS:

1. Abstract: Spell out DVB on first occurrence.

2. Intro 4th paragraph 1st sentence: Remove "normative"; is there an 
informative AL-FEC protocol?

spt

---

From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 06:54:28 -0800

Hi Sean,

Thanks for the review. See inline.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean Turner [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 9:17 AM
> To: General Area Review Team; [email-masked]
> Subject: GEN-Art review of draft-ietf-fecframe-dvb-al-fec-03
> 

This is the purpose of this draft.

> transport stream-based services over IP networks" and "This document

Here, "this" is referring to [ETSI-TS-102-034v1.3.1] not this draft.

> Session Description Protocol (SDP) [RFC4566]." Are these the same or

Here, "this" refers to this draft.

> should what's in the intro be copied in to the abstract?

I thought the meaning of "this" was clear in the context as each part is in a separate paragraph. But, we can make this more explicit.

> works in progress, then you're pinned on them completing.  Also, the

We refer to both of it. And they are both published.
For 1.4.1, we need to update the reference to:
http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/102000_102099/102034/01.04.01_60/ts_102034v010401p.pdf 

> you need to be clear what version you've based this ID on.  I don't get

The ID describes what one needs to do to be compliant with either DVB spec. In DVB, 1.4.1 did not obsolete 1.3.1. So, both may co-exist.

> adds no new security considerations to the AL-FEC protocol" or something

Sounds good.
 
> section was done on purpose because there are no MUST, SHOULD, etc. words.

Yes. Since we don’t wanna look like imposing new rules on existing DVB specs, the WG decided to do so.

> 1. Abstract: Spell out DVB on first occurrence.

Will do.
 
> informative AL-FEC protocol?

Also sounds good.

Let me know if you have further comments. We will do a revision once the LC completes.

-acbegen