Re: [AVT] Comments on draft-ietf-text-red-00.txt

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

Hi Paul,

[CCing the AVT list as there are issues here that needs open discussion]

Response inline.

Paul E. Jones wrote:

>Magnus,
>
>I'll try to make these changes.  I have questions for clarification:
>
>  
>
>>1. Section 3: rate parameter: I think the "may" in the last sentence
>>should be a normative one.
>>    
>>
>
>What do you mean by "normative"?
>

You should use normative language, in other words the MAY normative word 
that you use through reference to RFC 2119.

>
>  
>
>>5. Section 4, the last bullet for the "pt" list. This is under
>>specified, the following problems exist:
>>-  The removal or not of <"> quoting etc. is not defined.
>>    
>>
>
>Are you suggesting that people would not necessarily know if the quotes
>are
>part of the syntax or not?
>  
>
You are stripping the outer quotation marks, are you leaving the inner 
in place, in there converted form, or do you change to standard quotation?

>  
>
>>- How to handle any "dynamic-payload-type "=" content-type" string is
>>also not explained.
>>    
>>
>
>I do not understand your concern.  Can you explain further?
>  
>

When you are in the SDP domain, you SHOULD NOT / SHALL NOT use the 
pt=content-type structure at all. As the information is available in the 
SDP as defined PT. Therefore you only need to reference these PTs. So 
when having SDP should you in fact remove all of these pt=content-type 
declarations and only use PTs in the list?

I would also like to point out that the this declaration of 
"dynamic-payload-type "=" content-type" is not sufficiently clear. For 
RTP payload formats using parameters to configure this, this string is 
insufficient unless the parameter list can be included in the 
content-type part.

>  
>
>>7. Section 5: A proposal for how to handle the security problem is
>>always good. Proposal: "To prevent modification of the primary,
>>secondary or header information, payload integrity protection over at
>>least the complete RTP packet is recommend, for example using SRTP
>>    
>>
>[]."
>
>I agree with the added text, but concerned about referencing SRTP
>explicitly.  Will the RFC be published before this document?  I do not
>want
>to hold up progress due to a reference.  Would be be OK to leave off
>"for
>example using SRTP"?
>

The SRTP is in the RFC editors queue, so yes, it will be available 
before this document. Put SRTP into the informative reference list and 
write an RFC editors note that request that he replace the draft 
reference with the RFC number when it becomes available.

>
>  
>
>>8. Section 6, The first reference is an informative one, please move
>>    
>>
>it
>  
>
>>to an informative reference list. Also reference 7 is not used at all,
>>please remove.
>>    
>>
>
>I can do that.  What about 7, as well (RFC 3555)?
>
>  
>
>>I expect that the when these things are addressed the document is
>>    
>>
>ready
>  
>
>>for WG last call.
>>    
>>
>
>I've got all changes made, except those that are questions above.
>Looking
>forward to your reply... and thank you very much for your careful
>review.
>  
>

Great!

Magnus Westerlund 

Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone [phone]
Torshamsgatan 23           | Fax   [phone]
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [e-mail]



_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt