Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-art Telechat review of draft-ietf-payload-vp8-09

From: Elwyn Davies <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 16:30:41 +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 wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-payload-vp8-08
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 12 July 2013
IETF LC End Date: 18 June 2013 
IESG Telechat date: (if known) 18 July 2013

Summary: Essentially ready.  The nits from the last call review have
mostly been fixed - thanks. The issues with the references section have
only ben partly dealt with and there are still a mixture of bytes and
octets.  There is a rather awkquard downref to the VP8 coded data format
RFC 6386 - take advice from your AD on this one (he may already have
given it).
  
Major issues:

Minor issues:

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

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:  idnits complains that RFC 3984 is not referenced (sorry the LC
review said 3894), and RFC 6386 is a downref (you had better ask your AD
about this downref - it is fairly fundamental!)

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 08:12:07 +0200

Elwyn, many thanks for your review! I have raised the normative/informative question in my IESG review as an issue.

Jari