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

Peter Yee <> Fri, 07 May 2021 19:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD8B03A2F2B for <>; Fri, 7 May 2021 12:14:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.917
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uIIiOWOspgB4 for <>; Fri, 7 May 2021 12:14:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E26D63A2EF3 for <>; Fri, 7 May 2021 12:14:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from spectre ([]) by :SMTPAUTH: with ESMTPSA id f5vbl0tKZ9Nhjf5vcliB5q; Fri, 07 May 2021 12:14:24 -0700
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.4 cv=ZI0SJV3b c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=60959190 a=PF7/PIuz6ZQ4FM3W1XNKAQ==:117 a=PF7/PIuz6ZQ4FM3W1XNKAQ==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=3QrLPHW8Hgo3wcA5_fIA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=w1C3t2QeGrPiZgrLijVG:22
From: "Peter Yee" <>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?'Gunnar_Hellstr=C3=B6m'?= <>, <>
Cc: <>, <>, <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2021 12:14:33 -0700
Message-ID: <008601d74375$369cf690$a3d6e3b0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQHe5XzwqIi7jGcg8PZdzCAF541FQAJ93OajqrUrizA=
Content-Language: en-us
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4xfOzboYZ1SEjLNL01itXAqnLY2e+RxmPyJtDJkptRHysBPVCVZMwVowubDNVIjeIZbZce6auD9HAA1wTRj0cqhyoHa3ELZkQjA0Fy91nwM95rKD4QWZAi Cy780i5OG45tR3Fr5TFVZxw5noZhEs6DgnLI8CptCDAPN6M4IcjYzMcTN6lAfbWV4T8MhS/CaoIWiiregVSRtrbn+BDcJvSP5hWsbPk1+sIMWDZS3+Mf7swH 50LY3z2w0XRUYEs6ypXZVoc8oWf86GRd5+dyuB/nGkh3F6ihB3KUUGt/yEnMt/k23BqEuyVJRTo3MD6k1oFn9HJHCIo2Abor0fjsUXdjUf0=
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-mix-14
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 May 2021 19:14:31 -0000

Responses prefixed with [PEY] below.

		Kind regards,

-----Original Message-----
From: Gunnar Hellström [] 
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2021 11:36 AM
To: Peter Yee;
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

> <>.

> 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 

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 

[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.



Gunnar Hellström