Telechat Review of draft-ietf-payload-vp8-09
review-ietf-payload-vp8-09-genart-telechat-davies-2013-09-11-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-payload-vp8
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 17)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2013-07-16
Requested 2013-07-11
Authors Patrik Westin, Henrik Lundin, Michael Glover, Justin Uberti, Frank Galligan
Draft last updated 2013-09-11
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -08 by Elwyn Davies (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -09 by Elwyn Davies (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -16 by Elwyn Davies (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -17 by Elwyn Davies
Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Brian Weis (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Elwyn Davies
State Completed
Review review-ietf-payload-vp8-09-genart-telechat-davies-2013-09-11
Reviewed rev. 09 (document currently at 17)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2013-09-11

Review
review-ietf-payload-vp8-09-genart-telechat-davies-2013-09-11

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

<

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-payload-vp8-08
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 12 July 2013
IETF LC End Date: 18 June 2013 
IESG Telechat date: (if known) 18 July 2013

Summary: Essentially ready.  The nits from the last call review have
mostly been fixed - thanks. The issues with the references section have
only ben partly dealt with and there are still a mixture of bytes and
octets.  There is a rather awkquard downref to the VP8 coded data format
RFC 6386 - take advice from your AD on this one (he may already have
given it).
  
Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:
General: Consistent use of octets instead of bytes.

s10:  Are all of the refs normative?  If so change the section title.
The only one which I am dubious about is RFC 4566 (and there is  6386 -
see next comment).

s10:  idnits complains that RFC 3984 is not referenced (sorry the LC
review said 3894), and RFC 6386 is a downref (you had better ask your AD
about this downref - it is fairly fundamental!)