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

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

Hi Gunnar,

All of this looks good, thank you!

If you post a new version with those changes (you may have already; I
haven't checked), I'm comfortable sending the Last Call now.  We can sort
out specific text for the SHOULDs, etc., along the way; the various
reviewers might have suggestions on that topic, and maybe we can do some of
this in parallel.

-MSK

On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 2:18 PM Gunnar Hellström <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hello Murray,
>
> Thanks for the review,
>
> I have answered and acted on all but the SHOULD and RECOMMENDED etc. in
> sections 3.4 -4. The response on them will be provided soon.
>
> See answers inline,
> Den 2021-04-08 kl. 06:45, skrev Murray S. Kucherawy:
>
> 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.
>
> [GH] Moved one paragraph to the intro, deleted another because it had
> similar wording in the intro.
>
>
> 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.
>
> [GH]Done
>
>
> 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".
>
> [GH]Done
>
>
> In Section 1.3, "where a calltaker want to take" should use "wants"
> instead of "want".
>
> [GH]Done
>
>
> Is the "SHOULD" in Section 2.2 a piece of interoperability advice, or is
> it advice about presentation?
>
> [GH] Intended to be for interoperability.   I suggest to insert wording to
> result in:
>
> SHOULD *in order to maintain interoperability,* if nothing else is
> specified for the application, format transmitted text to that
> participant....
>
>
>
> In Sections 2.4, 3.20, and 7, in multiple places, "sdp" should be in all
> caps.
>
> [GH] Done
>
>
> In Section 3.2, remove "being".
>
> [GH] Would it be even more clear to replace "being" with "is" ?
>
>    "As soon as a participant is known to participate in a session with
>    another entity and is available for text reception, a Unicode BOM
>    character SHALL be sent to it....."
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> [GH] For 3.4, the explanation is at the end of the section: "The intention
> is to keep the latency low and network load limited while keeping a good
> protection against text loss in bursty packet loss conditions."
>
> But that is a summary explanation. I can insert explanations for each
> timing figure in the section.
>
> I stop handling this comment here for now and will return to it soon with
> another response..
>
>
> In Section 3.20, "this sections shows" should be "this section shows".
>
> [GH] Done
>
> In Section 4.2.6, "these facts makes" should be "these facts make".
>
> [GH] Done
>
>
> 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?
>
> [GH] Agreed, in this case SHALL is right.
>
>
> Section 11, second paragraph: "restricted of privacy reasons" should
> probably be "restricted for privacy reasons".
>
> [GH] Done
>
>
> Section 11, third paragraph: "masquerading" should be "masquerade".
>
> [GH] Done
>
>
> Section 11 should also probably refer to Section 3.19.
>
> [GH] A reference added last in 11: "Further security considerations
> specific for this application are specified in 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.)
>
> [GH] Done
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gunnar
>
> -MSK
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Audio/Video Transport Core [e-mail]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
>
> --
> Gunnar Hellström
> [e-mail]
>
>