I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at   Document:                         draft-ietf-avtcore-6222bis-03   Reviewer:                           Christer Holmberg   Review Date:                     10 June 2013   IETF LC End Date:             11 June 2013   IETF Telechat Date:         N/A   Summary:  There is a minor issue, described below, that I think should be clarified before the document is published.   Major Issues: None   Minor Issues:   Section 4.1 says:      “The RTCP CNAME can be either persistent across different RTP sessions    for an RTP endpoint or unique per session, meaning that an RTP    endpoint chooses a different RTCP CNAME for each RTP session.”   …and:      “An RTP endpoint that is emitting multiple related RTP streams that    require synchronization at the other endpoint(s) MUST use the same    RTCP CNAME for all streams that are to be synchronized.  This    requires a short-term persistent RTCP CNAME that is common across    several RTP streams, and potentially across several related RTP    sessions.  A common example of such use occurs when lip-syncing audio    and video streams in a multimedia session, where a single participant    has to use the same RTCP CNAME for its audio RTP session and for its    video RTP session.  Another example might be to synchronize the    layers of a layered audio codec, where the same RTCP CNAME has to be    used for each layer.”   …etc.   The text talks about the CNAME being unique within an RTP session, or to span over multiple RTP sessions, but it seems to omit that, * within * an RTP session, you can also use * different * CNAME values, if e.g. there is no synchronization requirement between the RTP streams.     Editorial nits: None   Best regards,   Christer