Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review ofdraft-ietf-avtext-rtp-duplication-04.txt

Hi Suresh, The text in section 7 says why this method is good for managed networks and is not for unmanaged networks. In managed environments, you have a pretty good idea of what is happening. By design, there should not be any congestion problems in such networks anyway (for the managed

Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-mmusic-delayed-duplication-02.txt (resent)

hi Francis Thanks for the review. The first nit, yes, i think I missed the one preferred by the RFC editor (this will be fixed by them anyway). The second one, ABNFs are not exactly figures, but in one of my earlier RFCs, someone asked for a caption for it and that is why I have been putting

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-fecframe-pseudo-cdp-04

Hi Miguel, Thanks for the review. - About the SDP example in Section 3.1. The first paragraph reads: The SDP description below states that the source flow defined by the tuple {*,*,233.252.0.1,3} is identified with FID=0 and the source flow defined by the tuple

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-cnames-02.txt

Hi Suresh, Thanks for the review. -Original Message- From: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:suresh.krish...@ericsson.com] Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 6:55 PM To: General Area Review Team; draft-ietf-avt-rtp-cnames@tools.ietf.org Subject: Gen-ART Last Call review of

Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-15.txt

Hi Francis, Thanks for the review. We addressed all these issues in the latest version. Cheers, acbegen. -Original Message- From: francis.dup...@fdupont.fr [mailto:francis.dup...@fdupont.fr] Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 11:41 AM To: gen-art@ietf.org Cc:

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-05

Hi Spencer, Thanks for the detailed review. See inline. Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a Proposed Standard. In my review, I found a few uses of 2119 language that did not seem to be justified (identified below as Spencer (minor):). The ADs should consider whether

Re: [Gen-art] GEN-Art review of draft-ietf-fecframe-dvb-al-fec-03

Hi Sean, Thanks for the review. See inline. -Original Message- From: Sean Turner [mailto:turn...@ieca.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 9:17 AM To: General Area Review Team; draft-ietf-fecframe-dvb-al-fec-03@tools.ietf.org Subject: GEN-Art review of

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-avt-post-repair-rtcp-xr-04.txt

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.