Re: [AVTCORE] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-mix-14

[Peter Yee <[e-mail]>]

Responses prefixed with [PEY] below.

		Kind regards,
		-Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Gunnar Hellström [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2021 11:36 AM
To: Peter Yee; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-mix-14

Continuing with comments and edit proposals from "Nits/editorial 
comments:" below.

Den 2021-05-06 kl. 05:41, skrev Peter Yee via Datatracker:
> Reviewer: Peter Yee
> Review result: Ready with Issues

> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.

> For more information, please see the FAQ at

> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

> Document: draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-mix-14
> Reviewer: Peter Yee
> Review Date: 2021-05-05
> IETF LC End Date: 2021-05-03
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

> Summary: This draft specifies updates to RFC 4103 to allow real-time text
> mixing for both multiparty-aware and multiparty-unaware participants. It has
> some minor issues that should be addressed before publication. [Ready with
> issues]

> Nits/editorial comments:

> Change “multiparty capable” to “multiparty-capable” throughout the document.
[GH] I suggest to change to "multiparty-aware" instead for consistency.

[PEY] Fine by me.

> Page 6, section 1.1, 2nd paragraph: insert “are” before “as”.
[GH] Recently changed to just "are defined in" by proposal in another 
review. I suggest to keep that.

[PEY] Agreed. 

> Page 6, “multiparty-unaware”: change “stands for” to “describes”.
[GH] Accepted and done.Your use of hyphen in "multiparty-unaware" made 
me understand that that term also should be hyphenated all through the 
document. Done.

[PEY] Yes, I failed to include that hyphenation in the general nits although I marked all of them in my review copy.

> Page 29, “BOM”, 1st sentence: insert “it” before “SHALL”.

[GH] Accepted, but part of the first statement is separated out to a 
sentence of its own: "  It SHALL be deleted from incoming streams."

[PEY] That's fine. I didn't fuss so much over sentence structure for the definitions.

> Page 32, section 6.1, title: drop the “e.g.” in the subsection title.
[GH] Not done. Many countries have their own terms for textphones. In 
USA and a few other countries (Canada, Australia) they are called TTY. 
That term is not understood in other countries. "Textphone" may not be 
understood in USA. Therefore I prefer having both the general term and 
the (e.g., TTYs) in the heading.

[PEY] With that understanding, I'm fine leaving an examples or two in the body text. As a matter of style, I don't think examples should appear in the title, but I won't argue the point. It's only style. :-)

> Page 32, section 6.1, 2nd paragraph, parenthetical: perhaps you want “i.e.,”
> instead of “e.g.” here given that further down you put “TTYS” in another
> parenthetical as though it weren’t just an example but the only exemplar of
> this type of device under discussion.

[GH] No. I did not mean "i.e.,". "TTY" is just one example with specific 
technology.

So, I suggest to keep this sentence:    "One case that may occur is a 
gateway to PSTN for communication with textphones (e.g., TTYs)."  While 
in the other places where (TTY) was mentioned it is deleted with its 
parenthesis.

[PEY] Okay.

> Page 32, section 6.1, 2nd paragraph, last sentence: delete “make”. Change
> “adaptions” to “adapt”. Delete “for” before “the functional”. Delete “(TTY)”.

[GH] I also needed to insert "to" before "adapt" to make:

"This solution makes it possible to adapt
    to the functional limitations of the textphone."

[PEY] I'm fine with the that sentence.

Thanks again for the thorough review. I have next version ready, also 
including changed caused by security comments and discussed in other mail.

Do you want me to submit the new version.

[PEY] If you have no further changes pending from other reviews, it probably makes sense to submit a new version with everything incorporated. I admit that I didn't thoroughly check the diffs between -14 and -16 to see if any of my proposed changes clashed.


Regards

Gunnar

-- 
Gunnar Hellström
GHAccess
[e-mail]