AD comments on draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-basic-schemes-revised-04

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: [email protected]
----------------------------------------------------------------------