Re: [AVT] AD review: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-h264-rcdo-06

[Tom Kristensen <[e-mail]>]

On 4 October 2010 12:19, Gonzalo Camarillo
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> as part of a load balancing exercise between Robert and I, I will be
> acting as the responsible AD for this draft.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-h264-rcdo/
>
> Below you can find my AD review. As soon as the authors address these
> comments (it should be trivial to address them), I will IETF Last Call
> this draft.

Great, thanks! I just submitted a new version addressing these
comments as detailed below.

[...]
> The acronyms RTP and RCDO need to be expanded in the title of the
> draft. In general, all acronyms need to be expanded on their first
> use.

RTP kept as is, cf. answer to SVC draft on this list. Other "not
well-known" acronyms are now expanded.

> The document refers to [3] as RFC3984bis. Given that [3] is a
> normative reference, this document will not be published until [3] is
> published as well. So, referring to it as, say, RFCYYYY and then get
> the RFC Editor to update the text seems like a better option than
> calling it RFC3984bis.

Done. We also have to remember syncing the identical parts of the
media subtype definition with draft-ietf-avt-rtp-rfc3984bis-11 when
it's 100% sure this will not change.

> Page 19: section X should be section 9.

Fixed.

> Section 9: "although if suitable the usage of SRTP [11] is
> recommended". Should that be a normative RECOMMENDED instead?

Not so sure, so in spirit of draft-ietf-avt-srtp-not-mandatory the
following sentence is used instead:

"Usage of data origin authentication and data integrity protection of
at least the RTP packet is RECOMMENDED, for example by use of the
Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP) <xref target="RFC3711"/>."

> The draft should have a reference to the SDP spec: RFC 4566.

Yes, now referenced in the Introduction section.

-- Tom

-- 
# Cisco
## [e-mail]  |  http://www.tandberg.com
### http://folk.uio.no/tomkri/