[AVTCORE] AD review of draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-mix

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

Hello friends, sorry for the delay getting this review done.

I think this is generally in good shape, though I admit my understanding of
WebRTC isn't as strong as I'd like.  My review is therefore mostly about
form rather than substance.

At any rate, I have the following comments to offer after a first review.
Please let me know what you think.

--

The Abstract is unusually long.  I would suggest reducing it to a paragraph
or two, or maybe three.  My lay opinion is that the first two paragraphs
could be left for the Introduction section, but other approaches are also
probably available.

In many places, references look odd (e.g., "RFC3550[RFC3550]").  This may
be an artifact of the way the XML generates the text or HTML forms but it
might be worth a quick review to get it to look right.

In Section 1.1, please use the new BCP 14 boilerplate (combining RFC 2119
and RFC 8174).  Also in that section, "as defined in" should be "are
defined in".

In Section 1.3, "where a calltaker want to take" should use "wants" instead
of "want".

Is the "SHOULD" in Section 2.2 a piece of interoperability advice, or is it
advice about presentation?

In Sections 2.4, 3.20, and 7, in multiple places, "sdp" should be in all
caps.

In Section 3.2, remove "being".

Section 3.4 has a bunch of "SHOULD" and "RECOMMENDED" that are not
explained.  See comment below about Section 8 for my thinking here.  This
continues throughout the rest of Section 3's subsections and much of
Section 4.

In Section 3.20, "this sections shows" should be "this section shows".

In Section 4.2.6, "these facts makes" should be "these facts make".

Section 8 has a bare "SHOULD", by which I mean advice is given with no
context.  "SHOULD" and "RECOMMENDED" present a choice; why might an
implementer legitimately decide not to follow this advice?  If there's no
good reason, should these be "SHALL"/"MUST" instead?

Section 11, second paragraph: "restricted of privacy reasons" should
probably be "restricted for privacy reasons".

Section 11, third paragraph: "masquerading" should be "masquerade".

Section 11 should also probably refer to Section 3.19.

Commonly, a "Changes" section (Section 12 here) is marked with a note like:

    [RFC Editor: Please remove this section prior to publication.]

(At least I presume that's the intent for this section as well.)

-MSK