Last Call Review of draft-ietf-payload-flexible-fec-scheme-16
review-ietf-payload-flexible-fec-scheme-16-genart-lc-shirazipour-2019-02-21-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-payload-flexible-fec-scheme |
|---|---|---|
| Requested rev. | no specific revision (document currently at 20) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2019-02-01 | |
| Requested | 2019-01-18 | |
| Authors | Mo Zanaty, Varun Singh, Ali Begen, Giridhar Mandyam | |
| Draft last updated | 2019-02-21 | |
| Completed reviews |
Secdir Last Call review of -16 by Radia Perlman
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -16 by Meral Shirazipour (diff) Tsvart Last Call review of -16 by Bernard Aboba (diff) Secdir Telechat review of -17 by Radia Perlman (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Meral Shirazipour |
| State | Completed | |
| Review | review-ietf-payload-flexible-fec-scheme-16-genart-lc-shirazipour-2019-02-21 | |
| Reviewed rev. | 16 (document currently at 20) | |
| Review result | Ready with Nits | |
| Review completed: | 2019-02-21 |
Review
review-ietf-payload-flexible-fec-scheme-16-genart-lc-shirazipour-2019-02-21
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 <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-payload-flexible-fec-scheme-16 Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour Review Date: 2019-01-31 IETF LC End Date: 2019-02-01 IESG Telechat date: NA Summary: This draft is ready to be published as Standards Track RFC . Major issues: Minor issues: Nits/editorial comments: -Section 1.1.1 Title "One-Dimensionsal "--->"One-Dimensional" -[Page 14] 3.2. , "signficant"--->"significant" -[Page 16], 4.2.1. , "pakcets"--->"packets" -[Page 35], 6.3.1. , "reciever"--->"receiver" -[Page 35], 6.3.1.1. , "signficant"--->"significant" -[Page 43], 7., "several Sesssion "--->"several Session " -Section 8, "an application should avoid sending/receiving FEC repair streams if it knows that sending/ receiving those FEC repair streams would not help at all in recovering the missing packets. It is RECOMMENDED that the amount and type (row, column, or both) of FEC protection is adjusted dynamically based on the packet loss rate and burst loss length observed by the applications." How would the application know that sending/receiving those FEC repair streams would not help at all? any rule of thumb to add here? Best Regards, Meral --- Meral Shirazipour Ericsson Research www.ericsson.com