Hi Brian, Thanks for your review. While having an identical T value in both pre and post-repair reports would simplify the comparison, it seems a better idea to me not to mandate it. Depending on the scenario, different T values may be needed and/or be more useful in pre and post-repair reports. At the end, using identical T values is still perfectly OK with the draft.
Thanks again and happy new year. -acbegen > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 11:52 AM > To: General Area Review Team > Cc: avt-cha...@tools.ietf.org; > draft-ietf-avt-post-repair-rtcp...@tools.ietf.org; Cullen > Jennings (fluffy) > Subject: Gen-ART LC review of > draft-ietf-avt-post-repair-rtcp-xr-04.txt I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-avt-post-repair-rtcp-xr-04.txt Reviewer: Brian Carpenter Review Date: 2008-12-15 IETF LC End Date: 2008-12-24 IESG Telechat date: (if known) Summary: Ready Comments: This is very clearly written. > o thinning (T): 4 bits > The amount of thinning performed on the sequence number space. Is there any value in suggesting that T should be identical for Pre-repair and Post-repair Loss RLE Reports? That would seem to make pre- and post- comparisons more meaningful. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
