Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-payload-vp8-08

From: Elwyn Davies <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 00:18:34 +0100

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-payload-vp8-08
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 7 June 2013
IETF LC End Date: 18 June 2013 
IESG Telechat date: (if known) -

Summary: Almost ready.  Needs to specify the format of all the integer
fields - a generic statement that 'all integer fields in the
specifications are encoded as unsigned integers in network octet order'
will solve this.  There is a rather awkquard downref to the VP8 coded
data format RFC 6386 - take advice from your AD on this one.  Check that
the media type registration is OK with the updated BCP (RFC 6838)

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:
General: Consistent use of octets instead of bytes.

s4: I suspect that usage of RTP/AVPF is an upper case RECOMMENDED.  A
brief explanation of *why* the usage of RTP/AVPF is RECOMMENDED would be
helpful. 

s4.1: The formats for the Timestamp and Sequence Number fields are not
specified (presumably unsigned integers in network octet order).

s4.2: The formats for PartID, PictureID, TL0PICIDX, TID, and KEYIDX are
not specified(presumably unsigned integers in network octet order).

s4.2, Y bit: s/an change/a change/; s/rfc 6386/[RFC6386]/ 

s4.3, SizeN:  s/The size of the first partition size/The size of the
first partition/

s4.3: SizeN and VER need formats.

s5.2: First, Number and (possibly) PictureID need formats.

s6.2.2: s/will need a mean/will need a means/

s10:  Are all of the refs normative?  If so change the section title.
The only one which I am dubious about is RFC 4566 (and there is  6386 -
see next comment).

s10:  id nits complains that RFC 3894 is not referenced, RFC 4288 is
obsoleted by 6838 (need to check your media type registration against
the updated BCP) and RFC 6386 is a downref (you had better ask your AD
about this downref - it is fairly fundamental!)