I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq> Please resolve these comments along with any other comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-fecframe-simple-rs-04 Reviewer: Miguel Garcia Review Date: 2012-10-17 IETF LC End Date: 2012-10-22 Summary: The document is ready for publication as a standards track RFC, but has some Nits that should be addressed. Major issues: none Minor issues: none Nits/editorial comments: - Section 5.1.1 starts with this sentence: The FEC Framework Configuration Information (or FFCI) includes information that MUST be communicated between the sender and receiver(s). This is not a normative "MUST" that you are specifying. You are merely describing how another specification has a normative MUST, but it is not of this document. Therefore, this "MUST" should be replaced by a "need" or perhaps a "must". - Section 5.1.1.1 reads: When SDP is used to communicate the FFCI, this FEC Encoding ID is carried in the 'encoding-id' parameter. Two points here: a) I am missing a normative MUST, such as "this FEC Encoding ID MUST be carried..." b) I guess it would not be such a bad idea to complete the sentence with the attribute name in SDP and normative reference that defines the attribute and the parameter. Proposal: When SDP is used to communicate the FFCI, this FEC Encoding ID MUST be carried in the 'encoding-id' parameter of the 'fec-repair-flow' attribute specified in RFC 6364 [RFC6364]. - Similarly in Section 5.1.1.2: If you agree with this changes, you should do similar changes to Section 5.1.1.2, the text beginning with "When SDP is used..." Notice also that the example following this text in Section 5.1.1.2 is misleading because it does not contain a single SDP line, which is generally considered the atomic representation element in examples, but just a fraction of it. I suggest to extend the example to the full a=fec-repair-flow line. - Section 8, IANA. Isn't the name of the registry "Reliable Multicast Transport (RMT) FEC Encoding IDs and FEC Instance IDs"? Or am I looking at the wrong registry? I think that the "FEC Framework (FECFRAME) FEC Encoding IDs is one of the registries included under that umbrella of RMT FEC Encoding IDs. As a reader, I would like to be able to find the right registry without doubt. /Miguel -- Miguel A. Garcia +34-91-339-3608 Ericsson Spain