Last Call Review of draft-ietf-payload-rtp-vc2hq-05

Request Review of draft-ietf-payload-rtp-vc2hq
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2018-05-16
Requested 2018-05-02
Authors James Weaver
Draft last updated 2018-05-04
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -05 by Elwyn Davies (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Joseph Salowey (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Elwyn Davies
State Completed
Review review-ietf-payload-rtp-vc2hq-05-genart-lc-davies-2018-05-04
Reviewed rev. 05 (document currently at 08)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2018-05-04


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-payload-rtp-vc2hq-05
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 2018-05-04
IETF LC End Date: 2018-05-16
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Ready.  A well written and comprehensible document.  Thanks!  I spotted a few minor nits noted below.

Major issues:\

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments: 
Abstract, S1 and VC2 reference: Expand SMPTE (Soc of Motion Picture and Television Engineers).

s4, para 3:  This para would probably be more helpful as a set of six bulleted entries for the six different packet formats, and omitting the 'one which carries' from each.

s4.1, Sequecnce Number: s/extneded/extended/

ss4.1, 4.2: The encoding and bit ordering of the numeric fields should be specified (presumably this can be covered by a single statement that they are all unsigned integers encoded in Network Byte Order.).

s4.4, third bullet: s/Hight/High/

s6.1, last para: Presumably this is left over from the template and should be removed.

s8, para 1: s/This responsibility lays on anyone/This responsibility lies with anyone/