[AVTCORE] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-payload-tsvcis-03: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-payload-tsvcis-03: 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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-payload-tsvcis/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work put into this document. It is far from my area of
expertise, so, I have reviewed only parts of it and my comments below may be
non relevant.

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

-- Section 2.3 --
C.1) "The assignment of an RTP payload type for this new packet format is
outside the scope of this document and will not be specified here", possibly
outside of my expertise area, but, why not requesting a payload type in this
document? And I see no other documents related to TSVCIS in the AVTCORE WG that
could do it. It also appears to contradict sections 4 and 7.

-- Section 3.1 --
C.2) Probably worth explaining why CODC is sometime "not available" ? Is this
not always present as hinted in the text below? If so, then what about using
"not present" ?

== NITS ==

-- Section 3 --
N.1) in "the timestamp is, as always, that", could perhaps replace "as always"
by "as specified in XYZ"