Re: [AVTCORE] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5285-bis-12: (with COMMENT)

[David Singer <[e-mail]>]

Yes, “local” means “locally to this session”


> On Jun 21, 2017, at 2:04 , Roni Even <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Adam,
> Inline
> Roni
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Adam Roach [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: יום ד 21 יוני 2017 02:16
>> To: The IESG
>> Cc: [e-mail]; Magnus Westerlund; avtcore-
>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5285-bis-12: (with
>> COMMENT)
>> 
>> Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5285-bis-12: Yes
>> 
>> 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-avtcore-rfc5285-bis/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> The use of the term "local" in this document is implicit and therefore
>> confusing. Section 5 refers to "local identifier (ID)", while section 7 refers to
>> "Local identifiers". Neither indicates what the identifiers are local to, and
>> some implementors have chosen to interpret this as meaning "local to the
>> sender machine." See, for example,
>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1361206
>> 
>> I believe the intention here is for "local" to mean "local to this session."
>> This meaning should be made explicit. And, for avoidance of doubt, the
>> document should clarify that the negotiated identifiers use the same
>> numeric value in both directions. This is implied by much of the text, but it
>> never stated outright. Because so many other session attributes (e.g.,
>> payload types) can be negotiated to be different in each direction, many
>> implementors are likely to assume the same applies here. As the above bug
>> demonstrates, this leads to real interop issues in the field.
> 
> [Roni Even] I also think you are right and should be clarified as "local to RTP session" 
> I will also verify this on the AVT list and with my co-authors
> 
>> 
>> Nits:
>> 
>>   element (no alignment is needed), and parsing stops at the earlier of
>>   the end of the entire header extension, or in one-byte headers only
>>   case, on encountering an identifier with the reserved value of 15.
>> 
>> Put quotation marks around "one byte headers only".
> [Roni Even] OK
>> ____
>> 
>>   Each extension element MUST starts with a byte containing an ID and a
>>   length:
>> 
>> s/starts/start/
> [Roni Even] OK
>> ____
>> 
>> The attribute definition in section 6 says "Value:" instead of "Value: none."
>> -- Fix or refer to the IANA section instead.
> [Roni Even] OK, will change n section 6 to "Value:none"
> 
>> 
> 

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.