I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (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 resolve these comments along with any other comments you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-fecframe-simple-rs-04
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <Miguel.A.Garcia at ericsson.com>
Review Date: 2012-10-17
IETF LC End Date: 2012-10-22



Summary: The document is ready for publication as a standards track RFC, 


but has some Nits that should be addressed.




Major issues: none

Minor issues: none

Nits/editorial comments:

- Section 5.1.1 starts with this sentence:

   The FEC Framework Configuration Information (or FFCI) includes
   information that MUST be communicated between the sender and
   receiver(s).



This is not a normative "MUST" that you are specifying. You are merely 


describing how another specification has a normative MUST, but it is not 


of this document. Therefore, this "MUST" should be replaced by a "need" 


or perhaps a "must".




- Section 5.1.1.1 reads:

   When SDP is used to communicate the FFCI, this FEC Encoding ID is
   carried in the 'encoding-id' parameter.

Two points here:


a) I am missing a normative MUST, such as "this FEC Encoding ID MUST be 


carried..."


b) I guess it would not be such a bad idea to complete the sentence with 


the attribute name in SDP and normative reference that defines the 


attribute and the parameter.




Proposal:

   When SDP is used to communicate the FFCI, this FEC Encoding ID MUST be
   carried in the 'encoding-id' parameter of the  'fec-repair-flow'
   attribute specified in RFC 6364 [RFC6364].

- Similarly in Section 5.1.1.2:



If you agree with this changes, you should do similar changes to Section 


5.1.1.2, the text beginning with "When SDP is used..." Notice also that 


the example following this text in Section 5.1.1.2 is misleading because 


it does not contain a single SDP line, which is generally considered the 


atomic representation element in examples, but just a fraction of it. I 


suggest to extend the example to the full a=fec-repair-flow line.






- Section 8, IANA. Isn't the name of the registry "Reliable Multicast 


Transport (RMT) FEC Encoding IDs and FEC Instance IDs"? Or am I looking 


at the wrong registry? I think that the "FEC Framework (FECFRAME) FEC 


Encoding IDs is one of the registries included under that umbrella of RMT 


FEC Encoding IDs. As a reader, I would like to be able to find the right 


registry without doubt.






/Miguel
--
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain