[AVTCORE] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-avtcore-multiplex-guidelines-11: (with COMMENT)

Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 02 March 2020 18:41 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: avt@ietf.org
Delivered-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46EAF3A0ED2; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 10:41:08 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-avtcore-multiplex-guidelines@ietf.org, avtcore-chairs@ietf.org, avt@ietf.org, Jonathan Lennox <jonathan.lennox42@gmail.com>, jonathan.lennox42@gmail.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.119.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Message-ID: <158317446824.27320.14210332255677350097@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2020 10:41:08 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/H7ivfNAOJVGxOrdmdBcumqlgSPU>
Subject: [AVTCORE] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-avtcore-multiplex-guidelines-11: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/avt/>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2020 18:41:08 -0000

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-avtcore-multiplex-guidelines-11: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


One processing question: Should this document update RFC3550 given the last
paragraph each in section 3.4.1 and 3.4.3?

And one comment on section 4.2.1:
"Different Differentiated
   Services Code Points (DSCP) can be assigned to different packets
   within a flow as well as within an RTP stream. "
not sure what you mean by flow here but at least RFC7657 says
"Should use a single DSCP for all packets within a reliable
      transport protocol session"
Maybe you can say a bit more here to ensure the guidance provided in RFC7657 is
reflected accurately.

Even though I didn't see any discussion of the TSV-ART review (Thanks Bernard!)
I believe all comments have been addressed. Thanks for that!

Fully editorial minor comments:
1) In the intro maybe:
 The authors hope that clarification on the usefulness
   of some functionalities in RTP will result in more complete
   implementations in the future.
This document aims to clarify the usefulness
   of some functionalities in RTP which will hopefully result in more complete
   implementations in the future.

2) sec 3.2
s/one or transport flows/one or more transport flows/
And maybe also
s/transport flows, e.g. an UDP destination port./transport flows, e.g. based on
the UDP destination port./?

3) sec 3.2.1:
"   RTP does not contain a session identifier, yet different RTP sessions
   must be possible to identify both across different endpoints and
   within a single endpoint."
Not sure I can parse this sentence correctly...

4) sec 4.1.3:
s/Signalling, choosing and policing/Signalling, choosing, and policing/ ->
missing comma

5) sec 6 maybe:
s/specification writers/specification designers/