Paul Kyzivat
2017-07-07 20:10:23 UTC
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other
last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-26
Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat
Review Date: 2017-07-07
IETF LC End Date: 2017-07-24
IESG Telechat date: TBD
Summary:
This draft is basically ready for publication, but has a few nits that
should be fixed before publication.
Issues:
Major: 0
Minor: 0
Nits: 4
(1) NIT:
Section 5.3: s/Eventhough/Even though/
(2) NIT:
Section 8: s/aTLS/a TLS/
(3) NIT:
Section 8: What is the point of including the example? I don't see how
it adds anything. Perhaps worked out O/A examples contrasting the
differences between the new and existing cases might be marginally
helpful. (But IMO not enough to bother with.)
(4) NIT:
Section 10.3.2: s/Througout/throughout/
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other
last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-26
Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat
Review Date: 2017-07-07
IETF LC End Date: 2017-07-24
IESG Telechat date: TBD
Summary:
This draft is basically ready for publication, but has a few nits that
should be fixed before publication.
Issues:
Major: 0
Minor: 0
Nits: 4
(1) NIT:
Section 5.3: s/Eventhough/Even though/
(2) NIT:
Section 8: s/aTLS/a TLS/
(3) NIT:
Section 8: What is the point of including the example? I don't see how
it adds anything. Perhaps worked out O/A examples contrasting the
differences between the new and existing cases might be marginally
helpful. (But IMO not enough to bother with.)
(4) NIT:
Section 10.3.2: s/Througout/throughout/