--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/avt-cryptex-review.txt	Fri Oct 20 14:43:42 2023 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+Document: draft-ietf-avtcore-cryptex-05
+Intended RFC status: Proposed Standard
+Review type: artart - Last Call review
+Reviewer: Henry S. Thompson
+Review Date: 2022-04-05
+IETF Last Call Date: 2022-04-05
+
+Summary: Almost Ready
+
+Caveat:  I'm not a user of Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)
+so am only reviewing this from a non-expert perspective.
+
+Minor points
+
+Section 5.2. Receiving
+  "The implementation MAY stop and report an error if it
+   considers use of this specification mandatory for the RTP stream."
+
+This reads oddly to me, as if it was originally written with 'may'
+rather than 'MAY'.  I think what is meant is more like the following:
+
+   Alternatively, in the presence of extensions but the absence of a
+   matching value, an implementation MAY signal that it requires use
+   of this specification by stopping and signalling an error.
+
+6.1 Packet Structure
+
+I _think_ this diagram combines parts of diagrams taken from 3711
+(Section 3.1 Figure 1) and 8285 (section 4.2).  The latter is an
+_example_, and as such the "length=3" in the 6th line of the diagram
+doesn't really belong in something labelled generically "the SRTP
+packet is protected as follows", which seems to imply that what
+follows is a template for all such packets.
+
+Not sure whether the best way to fix this is by expanding the label
+("for example an SRTP packet with 3 header extensions would be protected as
+follows") or by replacing "length=3" with something like "[number of
+extension headers]".
+
+Nits
+
+A number of acronyms are not glossed at first use, e.g. SRTP, SSRC, CSRC.
+If anyone reading this RFC can be expect to be familiar with them
+perhaps that's OK...
+
+Section 9.1
+
+Is there a line break or two missing [in the plain text version]
+here--------------------------
+                              |
+                              v
+as described in this document.  O/A procedures: SDP O/A procedures