Re: [AVT] Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-avt-rfc2429-bis-07 and draft-ietf-avt-rfc2190-to-historic-03

[Colin Perkins <[e-mail]>]

These issues are addressed by draft-ietf-avt-rfc2429-bis-08.txt and  
by draft-ietf-avt-rfc2190-to-historic-04.txt. Since there are no  
technical changes, we will consider this working group last call  
concluded, and request the IESG publish these drafts.

Colin




On 15 Dec 2005, at 09:44, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> Hi Roni and AVT,
>
> This WG last call has concluded. The WG last call received some  
> comments from Martin Duerst on the media types list however on  
> version 06:
>
>> Both types say:
>>   Encoding considerations:
>>       This type is only defined for transfer via RTP [RFC3550]
>> 'Encoding considerations' should mention how characters are encoded.
>> If these types don't contain character data, just say so. If they
>> do, say how that character data is encoded, or point to where this
>> is described.
>
> Thus, this issue is already resolved in version 07.
>
>> Also, it says:
>>    Security considerations: See Section 10
>> This should be changed to "Section 10 of RFC????", to make the
>> registration template self-contained at least in form. Ideally,
>> that stuff would be in the template, at least in a shortened form,
>> because people often do not follow references.
>
> I agree that this is necessary if one needs to correctly interpret  
> this registration template in a stand alone fashion. As it is a  
> minor editorial correction that can be done without any issues, I  
> would request that the Editor corrected this before we request  
> publication. However no new WG last call will be needed and  
> publication request will be sent as soon as the new versions are  
> available.
>
>> Also, in the first type, the parameter section is really long.
>> It may be better to take out some of that material and put it
>> in the actual spec, because it looks more like spec stuff than
>> like registration stuff.
>> Regards,   Martin.
>
> I don't agree with this, I don't think the specification becomes  
> significantly easier to read if move to some other chapter. I have  
> expressed this some week back and received no comments on the media  
> types list. Therefore I propose that we do NO changes in this regard.
>
> Cheers
>
> Magnus
>
>
> Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>> This announces the second working group last call for "RTP Payload  
>> Format for the 1998 Version of ITU-T Rec. H.263 Video (H.263+)"  
>> and is limited to the changes performed since the last WG last call.
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rfc2429-bis-06.txt
>> In addition the also announces the WG last call on moving RFC 2190  
>> and the video/h263 media type to historic as described and  
>> motivated in "RTP Payload Format for H.263 using RFC2190 to  
>> Historic status" which is intended to be published as an  
>> Informational RFC.
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rfc2190-to- 
>> historic-03.txt Please send any comments or feedback, positive or  
>> negative to the AVT mailing list no later than Tuesday the 13th of  
>> December.
>> Cheers
>> Magnus Westerlund
>> AVT chair


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