Re: [AVT] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-avt-rtp-atrac-family-11.txt

On 11 Jan 2008, at 11:57, actech wrote:
> Thank you very much for your comments and advice on our 11th draft.
>
>>> We used the terminology of "frame" for "unit of audio encoding".   
>>> But we agree that the meaning of "packet" and "frame" are  
>>> confused  and ambigious in the section, so we changed the  
>>> description here in  order to clarify the meaning and the usage  
>>> of "frame" and "packet".
>>>
>>
>> This is much better now, except for the Continuous Flag. In this  
>> case  it is not the packets that are fragmented, but the frame  
>> which is  fragmented across a series of packets.
>
> OK, we would like to change the description of Continuous Flag, as  
> follows.
>
> ---
> Continuous Flag (C) : 1bit
>
> The packet which corresponds to the last part of the audio frame data
> in a fragmentaion, SHALL have this bit to 0, otherwise set to 1.
> ---

That looks fine.

>> Finally, reference 12 probably needs to be a normative reference  
>> now,  since it's required to signal the layered coding.
>
> Reference 12 (draft-chierl-mmusic-layered-codec-04.txt) is not RFC  
> but the
> internet draft. Is it OK to put the internet draft as normative  
> reference, or do we need to put some remarks in our draft?

It is okay to put an internet-draft as a normative reference.

Regards,
-- 
Colin Perkins
http://csperkins.org/

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt