Re: [AVT] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-avt-rfc3555bis-00.txt

Colin,

> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rfc3555bis-00.txt
>
> This looks to be a good update, although clearly subject to change as
> the MIME types discussion progresses. A nit and a question:
>
> - The nit: section 2.1, end of 1st paragraph "...including the RTP
>   header or any payload-format header" -> "...or any RTP
>   payload-format header" for clarity that the payload format header
>   is part of RTP, not part of the media type.

Good suggestion.

> - The question: would it make sense to split the rules for new MIME
>   type registrations out into a separate draft from the updated
>   registrations forms?

I thought of that as I was preparing the revision.  However, I decided
against it for a couple of reasons:

  - The registrations should probably be updated to conform to the new
    format requirements, so that means the whole document needs
    updating.

  - The text at the beginning makes a couple of forward references to
    the registrations as examples.

  - It's probably better to have the revised document obsolete 3555
    rather than update it, and to do that the revision needs to
    provide the equivalent content.

                                                        -- Steve

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt