[AVTCORE] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-scip-06: (with COMMENT)

[John Scudder via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-scip-06: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-scip/



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

I have a couple small questions/nits with respect to this sentence in the
abstract:

                  SCIP is considered a
   tunneling protocol where the contents of the RTP payload will be
   indeterminant and should not be filtered or altered by the network.

Question: do you actually mean “tunneling protocol“ and not “tunneled
protocol“? When I read “tunneling protocol“, I think of something like LISP,
IPSec tunnel mode, etc — a general purpose facility for transporting data. As
far as I can tell from the rest of the spec, what you actually mean is that the
SCIP payload is tunneled inside RTP. Please correct if appropriate.

Nit: some of the dictionaries I consulted didn’t think that “indeterminant“ was
a word at all. Some of the more open-minded dictionaries allowed that it was a
word, but with a meaning that is somewhat… indeterminant, shall we say.
Probably the RFC editor would suggest a change to this anyway, but consider
changing to something closer to standard English if possible.