Re: [AVTCORE] WGLC on draft-ietf-avtcore-idms-05 - address comments

["DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[e-mail]>]

I wrote on 28/06/2012:

"I do notice that the IETF document and the ETSI document define one and the same XR block. Is there an intention that the ETSI document gets modified to reference the IETF document when finally approved and published (i.e. that the IETF document takes ownership and updates the existing registration? Or is there some other strategy for this block type?"

>From the revisions of the document it appears that section 7 is now an informative restatement of the ETSI document. The IANA registration remains with ETSI, and there is no addition of a reference to this proposed RFC.

So what is the proposed strategy now for the ETSI document? Does it get revised to incorporate the rest of the material now normatively specified in this document, or does it ignore it?

If the ETSI document is getting revised, why not transfer the normative specification his RFC and then make reference to the whole of this RFC?

I'd also note that I believe the IANA considerations section of this document could be more precisely stated. It needs to be clearer what rows are added to the IANA tables and what are the contents of those rows. Specifically, I am not sure how:

" This document defines a new RTCP packet type called IDMS Settings
   packet in the IANA registry of RTP parameters, part of RTCP Control
   Packet types (PT), based on the specification in Section 11."

gets interpreted by IANA, given that section 11 talks very little about this new PT. When a value gets assigned, where are you going to write it in the specification, and where exactly does it appear in the coding?

Keith

________________________________________
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Brandenburg, R. (Ray) van
Sent: 16 July 2012 14:04
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] WGLC on draft-ietf-avtcore-idms-05 - address comments

Hi All,

First, I would like to thank all who performed a review of the document.

Second, I have just uploaded a new version of the document (-06) which hopefully addresses all of the comments we received during the WGLC process. 

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-avtcore-idms-06

I'm not going to list all changes from the -05 version here (there are quite many of them), but you can find a diff here:

http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-avtcore-idms-06

Best regards,

Ray van Brandenburg



From: Roni Even [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: dinsdag 10 juli 2012 17:59
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: WGLC on draft-ietf-avtcore-idms-05 - address comments

Hi
Thanks to everyone who sent comments. I think we got a good number of WGLC reviews. The next step is for the editors to address the comments and update the document.
Note that the July 16th is the cutoff date for document submission. 
We will also have time to discuss open issues in the AVTcore session in Vancouver

Roni Even
AVTcore co-chair

From: Roni Even [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: 17 June, 2012 6:05 PM
To: '[e-mail]'
Cc: '[e-mail]'
Subject: WGLC on draft-ietf-avtcore-idms-05

Hi,
I would like to start a WGLC on http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-avtcore-idms-05 , RTCP for inter-destination media synchronization.

The WGLC will end on July 10th, 2012

Please review the draft and send comments to the list.

For the draft authors;  Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-avtcore-idms-05? If so,
has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details)?
The above question is needed for the document write-up when sent to publication.

Thanks

Roni Even
AVTcore  co-chair

This e-mail and its contents are subject to the DISCLAIMER at http://www.tno.nl/emaildisclaimer