Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-avtext-avpf-ccm-layered-03

From: "Vijay K.Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 11:06:53 -0600

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-avtext-avpf-ccm-layered-03
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: Nov-30-2016
IETF LC End Date: Dec-14-2016
IESG Telechat date: Unknown

This document is ready as an Proposed Standard (modulo a couple of
minor and nit comments below).

Major: 0
Minor: 1
Nits: 2

Minor:
- S5, S6: This is a standards-track document.  As such, I am not sure
  what the "(Informative)" moniker implies in the section heading.
  Since there is no RFC-2119 type of exhortations in the sections, it
  seems reasonable to simply remove the "(Informative)" tag in the
  section headings without loosing any material context while reading
  the paragraph.  The presence of the tag renders ambiguity.

Nits:
- S1: s/which the FIR request/that the FIR request/
- S1: In this section and rest of the document, you sometimes use FIR
  and at other times Full Intra Request.  Once you have defined Full
  Intra Request as FIR, I would suggest using FIR for consistency.

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Nokia Networks
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: [email-masked] / [email-masked]
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/  | Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 19:11:13 +0000

Hi Vijay, all,

Thank you for your review.  

The nits can be addressed, presumably by the RFC editor (unless more are found).  

As for your “minor” point: Clearly, a normative document can contain informative material.  Compared to certain other SDOs, IETF RFCs commonly contain a lot of explanatory text, examples and such, which is most often purely informative.  If such text were collected in distinct sections, I believe it is a good (and unfortunately underutilized) idea to label those sections as informative.  We have done so in the past, for example in the RTP payload format for H.264/SVC, which is referenced by the subject draft (see section 13 of https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6184).  It’s also common practice in ITU and ISO/IEC/MPEG media coding standard documents, and implementers of the subject draft are likely familiar with those media coding documents.  Insofar, my preference would be to leave that headline as is.  However, that preference is a weak one, and if others suggest removal of the word “informative”, we could certainly do so with minimal effort.

Regards,
Stephan

---

From: "Vijay K.Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 13:23:09 -0600

On 11/30/2016 01:11 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
> Hi Vijay, all, [...]
> As for your “minor” point: Clearly, a normative document can contain
> informative material.  [...]   Insofar, my preference would be to leave
> that headline as is.  However, that preference is a weak one, and if
> others suggest removal of the word “informative”, we could certainly
> do so with minimal effort.

Stephan: My point is that even if you do not put the "(Informative)"
tag in the heading, there is no loss of information.  The tag simply
draws attention.

In the end, I am happy to accommodate whatever decision you reach.  I
simply wanted to point out what appeared to me as a discrepancy when I
was reading the document.  As long as we have considered the issue
(which we have in this email conversation), I am happy with whatever
decision you arrive at.

Cheers,

- vijay