Last Call Review of draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1-17
review-ietf-cellar-ffv1-17-opsdir-lc-wu-2020-09-06-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 18)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2020-09-07
Requested 2020-08-24
Authors Michael Niedermayer, Dave Rice, Jérôme Martinez
Draft last updated 2020-09-06
Completed reviews Secdir Early review of -02 by Liang Xia (diff)
Genart Early review of -03 by Matthew Miller (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -16 by Liang Xia (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -16 by Joel Halpern (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -17 by Qin Wu (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Qin Wu 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-cellar-ffv1-17-opsdir-lc-wu-2020-09-06
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/2Prcqjj7hulNjIJWMeTz3Xi5thQ
Reviewed rev. 17 (document currently at 18)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2020-09-06

Review
review-ietf-cellar-ffv1-17-opsdir-lc-wu-2020-09-06

I have reviewed this document on behalf of the Operations and Management Directorate.
Four questions  need to be clarified:
1. why document v0,v1,v3 in draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1 as informational and document v4 in draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1-v4-14 as standard track? Not clear the key difference between v04 and all other previous versions?
2. Why not specify transport, is container sto which the ffv1 is mapped equivalent to transport? without transport, how to provide confidentiality, integrity, and source authenticity?
3. how error_status and crc parity are used? e.g., using crc parity detect error? can error be repaired? how?
4. Is bitstream parameters such as version, micor-version,num_h_slices,num_v_slices sensitity information that can disclosed? any security risk?