Hi,
I have made my AD review of the document and have the following
comments.
1. Obsolete information in header, abstract and introduction. If I
understand this correctly this document will replace RFC 3695 and
parts
of RFC 3452 that wasn't included in the already obsoleted one.
2. There is a missing "." in the last sentence of section 1.
3. Section 3.2.2.2:
" The "Reserved" field in the Encoded FEC Object Transmission
Information SHOULD be set to zero by senders and its value
SHOULD be
ignored by receivers."
Using the definition of SHOULD here makes it pretty difficult to use
this field in the future. I normally recommends that at least
setting it
needs to be MUST and usually also the ignore on receiver. So that
if one
deploys a new spec that uses these bits would not throw up on them.
As I
am uncertain how widely deployed this definition already is I only
ask
the WG to consider if this should be changed or not.
4. Section 5.3:
I think there needs to be an additional sentence her to specify
that if
a instance is not using the algorithm it needs to specify what it
uses.
5. Section 9. I think we need to move the registry rules forward from
the going to be obsoleted RFCs 3695 and 3452. Thus please include the
registry rules in this section and request that IANA changes the
pointers for the rules to this doc.
Cheers
Magnus Westerlund
IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB | Phone +46 8 4048287
Färögatan 6 | Fax +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund at ericsson.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------