Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-jpeg2000-beam-09.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 00:35:35 -0400

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) 
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see 
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). 
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments 
you may receive. 

Document: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-jpeg2000-beam-09.txt
Reviewer: David Black
Review Date: 15 March 2008
IETF LC End Date: 15 March 2008

Summary:

This draft is on the right track, but has open issues,
described in the review.

Comments:

There are two open issues, both of which should be fairly
easy to address:

[1] Section 3.2 doesn't provide enough information to calculate
a packet priority value from layer, resolution and component
values.  In fact the example it gives appears to be simple
enough to also be an example of the component based ordering
defined in Section 3.5.  Section 3.2 needs to explain
how the priority value is calculated and use a more complex
example to illustrate the results of the calculation.

[2] Section 4.1 contains this problematic text:

   An initial value of mh_id MUST be selected randomly between 1 and 7
   for security reasons.

This needs to be explained, and "security" is probably the wrong
word.  Any security that depends on this random choice is likely
to be easily subverted by the adversary trying all 7 possible values.

Nits:

As noted by IANA, Section 7.2 doesn't contain any IANA actions
and hence probably should not be a subsection of the IANA
Considerations section (7)

Reference [1] should reference the Internet Draft by name.
   [1]  Futemma, "RTP Payload Format for JPEG 2000 Video Streams",
        RFC XXXY, April 2007.
I believe this is draft-ietf-avt-rtp-jpeg2000-18.txt.  That
should be in the reference instead of RFC XXXY.  Then add
an RFC Editor note asking the RFC Editor to replace all instances
of RFC XXXY with the RFC number assigned when reference [1]
is published as an RFC.

idnits 2.08.04 found this problem with reference [1] and was
confused by reference [3].  Reference [3] is fine as-is; no
change is needed.

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
[email-masked]        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf