Re: [AVTCORE] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-mix-14

Gunnar Hellström <> Fri, 07 May 2021 20:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E17413A311C; Fri, 7 May 2021 13:14:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7TuExinNipFq; Fri, 7 May 2021 13:14:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8CB33A3107; Fri, 7 May 2021 13:14:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2C6D8202E6; Fri, 7 May 2021 22:14:42 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=dkim; t=1620418482; bh=aws9qRbK+Yom/D3o09FJ4A8dQXd5Ywi6HChFKOq28uI=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=OKbuN9MOFRl01QNG6Yp3TwjemfutCMBRjIZslyJVOTPIuRSahShGONgB1FmH6l0+s 6U9X2e69ty3x5vjFjLU+zGdPEhHGKdobT/rursa8Jnm1JDFRvudo6M/AVnJcRVm1yD DgjVNMFSukiXShNSPX4ZiLcqJ1KSZSjb2eZ5Hbzs=
To: Peter Yee <>,
References: <> <> <008601d74375$369cf690$a3d6e3b0$>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Gunnar_Hellstr=c3=b6m?= <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2021 22:14:41 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <008601d74375$369cf690$a3d6e3b0$>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: sv
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-mix-14
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 May 2021 20:14:49 -0000

Version -17 of the draft is submitted, with intention to have all Genart 
and Secdir review comments resolved.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:

There is also an HTML version available at:

A diff from the previous version is available at:



Gunnar Hellström

Den 2021-05-07 kl. 21:14, skrev Peter Yee:
> Responses prefixed with [PEY] below.
> 		Kind regards,
> 		-Peter
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gunnar Hellström []
> Sent: Friday, May 07, 2021 11:36 AM
> To: Peter Yee;
> Cc:;;
> Subject: Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-mix-14
> Continuing with comments and edit proposals from "Nits/editorial
> comments:" below.
> Den 2021-05-06 kl. 05:41, skrev Peter Yee via Datatracker:
>> Reviewer: Peter Yee
>> Review result: Ready with Issues
>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
>> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
>> like any other last call comments.
>> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>> <>.
>> Document: draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-mix-14
>> Reviewer: Peter Yee
>> Review Date: 2021-05-05
>> IETF LC End Date: 2021-05-03
>> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
>> Summary: This draft specifies updates to RFC 4103 to allow real-time text
>> mixing for both multiparty-aware and multiparty-unaware participants. It has
>> some minor issues that should be addressed before publication. [Ready with
>> issues]
>> Nits/editorial comments:
>> Change “multiparty capable” to “multiparty-capable” throughout the document.
> [GH] I suggest to change to "multiparty-aware" instead for consistency.
> [PEY] Fine by me.
>> Page 6, section 1.1, 2nd paragraph: insert “are” before “as”.
> [GH] Recently changed to just "are defined in" by proposal in another
> review. I suggest to keep that.
> [PEY] Agreed.
>> Page 6, “multiparty-unaware”: change “stands for” to “describes”.
> [GH] Accepted and done.Your use of hyphen in "multiparty-unaware" made
> me understand that that term also should be hyphenated all through the
> document. Done.
> [PEY] Yes, I failed to include that hyphenation in the general nits although I marked all of them in my review copy.
>> Page 29, “BOM”, 1st sentence: insert “it” before “SHALL”.
> [GH] Accepted, but part of the first statement is separated out to a
> sentence of its own: "  It SHALL be deleted from incoming streams."
> [PEY] That's fine. I didn't fuss so much over sentence structure for the definitions.
>> Page 32, section 6.1, title: drop the “e.g.” in the subsection title.
> [GH] Not done. Many countries have their own terms for textphones. In
> USA and a few other countries (Canada, Australia) they are called TTY.
> That term is not understood in other countries. "Textphone" may not be
> understood in USA. Therefore I prefer having both the general term and
> the (e.g., TTYs) in the heading.
> [PEY] With that understanding, I'm fine leaving an examples or two in the body text. As a matter of style, I don't think examples should appear in the title, but I won't argue the point. It's only style. :-)
>> Page 32, section 6.1, 2nd paragraph, parenthetical: perhaps you want “i.e.,”
>> instead of “e.g.” here given that further down you put “TTYS” in another
>> parenthetical as though it weren’t just an example but the only exemplar of
>> this type of device under discussion.
> [GH] No. I did not mean "i.e.,". "TTY" is just one example with specific
> technology.
> So, I suggest to keep this sentence:    "One case that may occur is a
> gateway to PSTN for communication with textphones (e.g., TTYs)."  While
> in the other places where (TTY) was mentioned it is deleted with its
> parenthesis.
> [PEY] Okay.
>> Page 32, section 6.1, 2nd paragraph, last sentence: delete “make”. Change
>> “adaptions” to “adapt”. Delete “for” before “the functional”. Delete “(TTY)”.
> [GH] I also needed to insert "to" before "adapt" to make:
> "This solution makes it possible to adapt
>      to the functional limitations of the textphone."
> [PEY] I'm fine with the that sentence.
> Thanks again for the thorough review. I have next version ready, also
> including changed caused by security comments and discussed in other mail.
> Do you want me to submit the new version.
> [PEY] If you have no further changes pending from other reviews, it probably makes sense to submit a new version with everything incorporated. I admit that I didn't thoroughly check the diffs between -14 and -16 to see if any of my proposed changes clashed.
> Regards
> Gunnar
Gunnar Hellström