Document: draft-ietf-fecframe-dvb-al-fec-03.txt
Reviewer: Sean Turner
Review Date: 2009-12-08
IETF LC End Date: 2009-12-14
IESG Telechat date: unknown

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

Purpose of the ID:  I don't think it's clear what the purpose of the ID 
is from reading the abstract/introduction.  The abstract says "This document 
describes how one can implement the DVB-IPTV AL-FEC protocol by using 
the 1-D interleaved parity code and Raptor code that have already been 
specified in separate documents."  The introduction says "This specification 
covers several areas related to the transmission of MPEG2 transport stream-
based services over IP networks" and "This document shows how this 
configuration may be communicated out-of-band in the Session Description 
Protocol (SDP) [RFC4566]." Are these the same or should what's in the 
intro be copied in to the abstract?

Intro 2nd pargagraph: Is the ID based on the ETSI v1.3.1 or on the 
bluebook or on the v1.4.1?  If it's either of the last two and they are 
works in progress, then you're pinned on them completing.  Also, the 
last sentence says there are changes to the AL-FEC protcol so I think 
you need to be clear what version you've based this ID on.  I don't get 
that from the intro.

Security Considerations: Should probably change the security considerations to 
say something along the lines of "this specification adds no new security 
considerations to the AL-FEC protocol" or something like that.

Question:

I assume that the absence of the "conventions used in this document" 
section was done on purpose because there are no MUST, SHOULD, etc. words.

NITS:

1. Abstract: Spell out DVB on first occurrence.

2. Intro 4th paragraph 1st sentence: Remove "normative"; is there an 
informative AL-FEC protocol?