Last Call Review of draft-ietf-avtext-sdes-hdr-ext-05

Request Review of draft-ietf-avtext-sdes-hdr-ext
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2016-03-18
Requested 2016-03-11
Authors Magnus Westerlund, Bo Burman, Roni Even, Mo Zanaty
Draft last updated 2016-03-27
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -05 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Samuel Weiler (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Jouni Korhonen (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Jouni Korhonen
State Completed
Review review-ietf-avtext-sdes-hdr-ext-05-opsdir-lc-korhonen-2016-03-27
Reviewed rev. 05 (document currently at 07)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2016-03-27


I have reviewed this document (draft-ietf-avtext-sdes-hdr-ext-05) as part of the
Operational directorate's  ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being
processed by the IESG.  These comments were written with the intent of improving
the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in
last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors
and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. 

I am not an expert on the details of RTP thus treat my comments are not really on the technical side of the document. I found the document fine and have no concerns with it.

The IDnits comments can be ignored. They are to be fixed by RFC editor when the
RFC numbers are known.

I have few minor comments:

o Line 180 at the beginning of the paragraph starts “That document also..” Since this is the start of the new paragraph I would recommend setting up the context and explicitly say what “that document” is.

o Line 304 "extension word aligned, thus in total 36 bytes.” seems to assume a word is 32 bits. Due historical reasons to avoid confusion I would explicitly state that a 32 bit alignment is what ‘word aligned’ means.

o Line 458 "shall be applied, i.e. discard items that can be determined to be”
           ^^^^^^ although it is not strictly required but I would use the familiar uppercase format here and probably also use more typical MUST here..

- Jouni