Last Call Review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat-06
review-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat-06-secdir-lc-wierenga-2013-02-07-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2013-02-01
Requested 2013-01-25
Authors Glen Zorn, Roland Schott, Qin Wu, Rachel Huang
Draft last updated 2013-02-07
Completed reviews Genart Telechat review of -08 by Wassim Haddad (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -06 by Klaas Wierenga (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Klaas Wierenga
State Completed
Review review-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat-06-secdir-lc-wierenga-2013-02-07
Reviewed rev. 06 (document currently at 11)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2013-02-07

Review
review-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat-06-secdir-lc-wierenga-2013-02-07

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's  ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the 
IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat 
these comments just like any other last call comments.

The draft defines three RTCP XR block types for reporting loss, duplication and discard summary statistics independent from the RTP application that is used, augmenting the ones in RFC3611.

The draft is well written and clear, and I have only minor comments/questions:

* 1.1 Summary Statistics Metrics

Since these are summary (as opposed to raw) statistics metrics, does that mean that the concerns wrt to confidentiality are somewhat alleviated? And if so, shouldn't that go in the security considerations? 

* 2.1 Standards language

Picture Type 

It is not clear from the text what Picture Type means. Are you saying that the 2 choices for Picture Type are respectively Key Frame and Derived Frame? If so, please make that more clear. Picture Type also seems a bit of a misnomer, but I guess Frame Type has unwanted connotations as well

* 7 Security Considerations

See my remark on 1.1

Cheers,

Klaas