Re: [AVT] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-avt-rtp-vorbis-02.txt

Colin Perkins wrote:
> First of all, there are a number of 'nits' found by the automated
> checker:
> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/avt/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-vorbis/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-vorbis-02.nits.txt
> 

Ok, I'm having problems in putting intended status in xml2rfc in the
correct way, beside that all nits should be fixed in svn

> 
> The media type registrations use an old MIME registration template (or a
> variation on it), and should be updated to match the new template.
> Please follow the instructions in, and reference, RFC 4855, and ensure
> the change controller is listed as "IETF AVT Working Group delegated
> from the IESG", rather than just the working group.

Ack, is there an xml2rfc template around I could pillage?

> 
> Both media type registrations should be included in the IANA
> Considerations section (or, at least, referenced from it).

I moved the packed header registration to the IANA consideration section

> 
> For the "delivery-method" media type parameter, is the "specific_name"
> part of the out_band method needed, or can it be inferred from the
> configuration URI? It would ease registration if it can be inferred.

I think it's ok, I'll drop the specifc_name item in the next commit.

> 
> The offer/answer considerations section should specify if the parameters
> are declarative or negotiated. Section 3.3.2 of
> draft-ietf-avt-rtp-howto-01.txt has some guidance on this.

ok

> 
> These are all relatively minor issues, which should be possible to fix
> relatively quickly.

I'll submit another revision during this week once I'll reshape the IANA
section to be compliant.

Thank you for the comments

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato

Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt