Francesca, thanks for your review. I entered a DISCUSS ballot to get IANA considerations and security considerations added. Alissa > On Jun 3, 2019, at 7:59 AM, Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Francesca Palombini > Review result: Ready with Nits > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-netvc-testing-08 > Reviewer: Francesca Palombini > Review Date: 2019-06-02 > IETF LC End Date: 2019-06-04 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that > should be fixed before publication. > > Major issues: N/A > > Minor issues: N/A > > Nits/editorial comments: > > * The document is missing the IANA section and Security Considerations section. > Although they do not apply (as the shepherd noted), these sections are > required. (See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7322#section-4.8.5 and > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7322#section-4.8.3) > > * Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of > draft-ietf-netvc-requirements-08 > > All following comments are suggestions that would have helped a non-expert > reader (feel free to disregard): > > * Section 2 - Subjective testing is mentioned in the first sentence with no > introduction. Although quite clear, a short definition or a reference to > literature would have been helpful. > > * Section 2, second to last paragraph - The text is somewhat not well > formulated. "... even if the group agrees that a particular test is > important... then the test should be discarded. This ensures that only > important tests be done; in particular, the tests that are important to > participants" I understand that the paragraph was meant to underline the > necessity of selecting tests that participants can/will complete in a timely > fashion. But the formulation is not great: the group agrees on a particular > test is important, but if it is not completed it is not important? > > * There are several acronym across the document that could have been expanded > on first use, or used a reference to the definition: PMF, PSNR, PSNR-HVS-M, CQP > > * Section 3.7 - "This metric is focused on quality degradation due compression > and rescaling" missing "to" > > * Section 5.2 - It would have been good to explicitly write out here what the > parenthesis after each test indicates (resolution, bit depth, etc) > > * Section 5.2.2 - "High bit depth" could you quantify more precisely what high > is here? > > * Section 5.2.4 and 5.2.5 - Does "old version" mean this should be seen as > deprecated? > > (Please keep my address in the To: field if you want to make sure I see any > response to this thread) > > Thanks, > Francesca > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
