Subject: [payload] Questions on draft-ietf-payload-vp8-16

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 16:50:45 -0500

Hi,

I'm doing a quick re-look at draft-ietf-payload-vp8-16 before starting a 
repeat IETF Last Call. I have a few comments. I don't think any of these 
need delay the last call, so please address them along with any last 
call comments.

Please bear in mind that I am reconstructing a lot of history here, so I 
apologize in advance if I bring up things that have already been 
discussed.

Thanks!

Ben.

------------

General:

Ted Lemon and Pete Resnick made some AD comments when they were still 
ADs. Even though they are no longer on the IESG, their comments look 
reasonable. I don't see evidence that they have been addressed--please 
consider addressing them.

It looks like you have addressed some, but not all, of Stephen Farrell's 
comments. Has there been discussion on why the ones not addressed were 
not addressed?

(Note that in both of the paragraphs above, I don't mean by "addressed" 
that the draft necessarily needs to change--just that the authors 
respond to the input--even if only to say why they don't agree with a 
comment.)

-- 4.5 and 4.5.1: It would be helpful to explain why these are listed as 
examples. I assume it's one of those cases where this algorithm gives 
the right results, but others could also do so. If so, some words to 
that effect would be helpful. It might also be helpful to include a few 
words indicating why 4.5.1 is a child of 4.5 rather than a peer. (I 
assume because partition reconstruction is a subset of frame 
reconstruction?)

-- 7:

I don't see a response to the secdir review ( Secdir review of 
draft-ietf-payload-vp8-08 ). For the SRTP question, please consider 
using the boilerplate in the appendix of draft-ietf-payload-rtp-howto-14 
(section A.13).