Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-26

Request Review of draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 32)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-07-24
Requested 2017-07-03
Authors Christer Holmberg, Roman Shpount
Draft last updated 2017-07-07
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -22 by Paul Kyzivat (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -22 by Rich Salz (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -22 by Carlos Pignataro (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -26 by Paul Kyzivat (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -27 by Paul Kyzivat (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -28 by Rich Salz (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -28 by Paul Kyzivat (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Paul Kyzivat 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-26-genart-lc-kyzivat-2017-07-07
Reviewed rev. 26 (document currently at 32)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2017-07-07


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area 
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the 
IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other 
last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at 

Document: draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-26
Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat
Review Date: 2017-07-07
IETF LC End Date: 2017-07-24
IESG Telechat date: TBD


This draft is basically ready for publication, but has a few nits that 
should be fixed before publication.


Major: 0
Minor: 0
Nits:  4

(1) NIT:

Section 5.3: s/Eventhough/Even though/

(2) NIT:

Section 8: s/aTLS/a TLS/

(3) NIT:

Section 8: What is the point of including the example? I don't see how 
it adds anything. Perhaps worked out O/A examples contrasting the 
differences between the new and existing cases might be marginally 
helpful. (But IMO not enough to bother with.)

(4) NIT:

Section 10.3.2: s/Througout/throughout/