[AVTCORE] Review of draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-mix

[Brian Rosen <[e-mail]>]

I have reviewed -multi-party-mix-09 and have the following comments:

1. Section 1 Introduction provides the solution, in detail.  I think it would be better to have a high level description of the problem, and then introduce the solution in a subsequent section.  I would also like to see a little text on what “mixing” for rtt means.

2. In the Selected solution and considered alternatives section, the first alternative (One RTP stream per source in same RTP session), please make it clearer that the clients have to support this, not just the mixer, and that’s the issue.  

3. I don’t really understand the text at the end of that section where it describes when multiple typers send text simultaneously.  ISTM that RTT behaves just like voice in that turn taking is often jumbled when more than one user responds to the previous user.  It takes time to recognize it, and for agreement on who has the “floor”.

4.  Need a better heading for “Specified Solutions”.  Actually, I wonder if you could delete this whole section, and add a definition for “multiparty aware” and “multiparty unaware” in 1.2.  Some of this text might move to 3 and 4.2, but that’s okay

5. If you did remove Section 2, you could rename Section 3 to Procedures for Multi-party aware mixing

6. The first two paragraphs of 3.1 are O/A text.  The last 3 aren’t - they are how parties act after O/A

7. In 3.3, it says “As soon as a participant is known to participate in a session and being available for text reception, a Unicode BOM character SHALL be sent to it according to the procedures in this section.”  I think it is unclear who sends this to whom.  I believe based on the text in 3.8, that the participant sends BOM to the mixer, because it says “and deletion of 'BOM' characters from each participant”.  Does the participant send it to the mixer?  Does the mixer send it to the new participant?  To existing participants?

8. I don’t remember why you have to send the redundant text before switching sources.  You might want to explain why in 3.11.  It’s obvious you would like to do Particpant 1, initial, Participant 2, initial, Participant 1, redundant 1, Participant 2 redundant 2, Participant 1, redundant 2, Participant 2, redundant 2.

9. Might want to add text before 3.18.1 that says why you want to send CSRC length 0.

10. Typo “evenso” in 3.19

11. Not sure I understand what “a negotiation between security and no security SHOULD be applied. ” (3.20) is supposed to mean. 

12. Showing examples of SHA-1 may be realistic, but not desirable.

13. Possible discussion of malicious participants in Security Considerations.  Not much can be done, other than require secure signaling and media (so authentication can be relied upon).