Documents: draft-ietf-avt-uncomp-video-06.txt

Trigger: IETF Last Call, January 2005
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
AD: Ted Hardie
Review Date: 12 January 2004

Intended status: Proposed Standard

Summary: Technically this document is ready to go, except for a minor point in the Security Considerations.  Editorially, it could be significantly improved by the provision of sub-section headings in Section 4.3 relating to the various different formats, and possibly by greater use of lists for the various sub-options (such as bits per pixel cases).

Review:
Generally very well written and clear - an excellent document!

Only one real quibble:
Section 8: The use of MUST and SHOULD as regards packet loss monitoring are unenforceable, and are not suitable for the security considerations in this context: maybe use 'strongly recommended', 'recommended'.

A couple of suggestions:
Section 4.3: Might be usefully divided into sub-sections for each type of payload to make it easier for users to find the applicable section.  It could also be an easier read if a list format were used for the various sample size cases.
Section 4.3: It would be useful to have pointers to Section 6.1 attached to the introduction of the 'top-field-first' MIME parameter and the position matrices.

Editorial Nits:
Section 3, para 3: s/the standard RTP packet/the standard RTP packet sequence number/
Section 9: s/RFC2431 only address/RFC2341 only addresses/