IETF Logo Mail Archive

[AVTCORE] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-10

"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Sat, 16 July 2016 21:56 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 718BA12D13B; Sat, 16 Jul 2016 14:56:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.187
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.187 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z9qvSlXZctiw; Sat, 16 Jul 2016 14:56:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F2C612D112; Sat, 16 Jul 2016 14:56:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.132.1.6] ([162.216.46.39]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id u6GLuAYS044034 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 16 Jul 2016 16:56:13 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [162.216.46.39] claimed to be [10.132.1.6]
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
To: draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes.all@ietf.org, IETF AVTCore WG <avt@ietf.org>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 23:56:10 +0200
Message-ID: <5F4C7382-41E2-4791-BEC6-51481BE1D917@nostrum.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.4r5234)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/XpLMK4Y5vKsbInnwg7SU4osMd08>
Subject: [AVTCORE] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-10
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
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: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 21:56:19 -0000

Hi,

This is my AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-10. I 
think these comments can be addressed in parallel to the IETF last call, 
so I'm going to request that shortly.

Thanks!

Ben.

Substantive Comments:


- This draft has a pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. Is that really needed? Am I 
correct it is due to the excerpted "OLD" text from RFC5764? If so, has 
anyone checked with the authors of that (Ekr and David McGrew) about 
whether they would agree to let this draft progress without the 
disclaimer?

-1, last paragraph:

Are there any plans to fix 7345 or bundle-negotiation? I see that 7345 
replicates language from 5764 rather than references it, but it looks 
like a fairly easy fix. I wonder if bundle-negotiation really needs a 
fix beyond the fact that it's reference to 5764 will effectively inherit 
any fixes due to the obsolescence of 5764.
This paragraph will likely be overtaken by events at some point. 
Remember that an RFC lasts forever. Language to the effect of "at the 
time of this writing" might be helpful.

Editorial Comments:

- Section 1, paragraph 6 (First paragraph after numbered list)

This paragraph goes a bit far into value judgements. Can we dispense 
terms like "bad design" and "socially undesirable"? Also, I'm a little 
confused by the last sentence--what is the point of "even if a codepoint 
is not initially thought to be useful"?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email