RE: [AVT] WGLC comments on draft-ietf-avt-avpf-ccm-03.

Stephan some more feedback

16. In section 3.5.3 I suggest adding "This memo addresses only the transport of those code-points." To the second paragraph and delete the next two paragraphs.

For everyone's reference, here the two para Roni suggests deleting:

   In so far, this memo follows the guidance of a decade of RTP payload

   format specification work -- the details of the media format carried

   is normally not described in any significant detail.

   However, we note that some H.271 messages bear similarities with

   native messages of AVPF and this memo.  Furthermore, we note that

   some H.271 message are known to require caution in multicast

   environments -- or are plainly not usable in multicast or multipoint

   scenarios.  Table 1 provides a brief, oversimplifying overview of the

   messages currenty defined in H.271, their similar AVPF or CCM

   messages (the latter as specified in this memo), and an indication of

   our current knowledge of their multicast safety.

I have no problems in removing the upper paragraph in lieu of the line Roni suggested.  However, the lower one has considerable information in it, and IMHo should stay.  Others?

RE:  My mistake in the comment. The replacement text was for the following text

I meant to remove the following part

"Another reason lies in the complexity of the H.271 specification: it

   is a dense document with currently 16 pages of content.   It does not

   make any sense to try to summarize its content in a few sentences of

   IETF lingo -- oversimplification and misguidance would be inevitable.

   Finally, please note that H.271 contains many statements of

   applicability and interpretation of its various messages in

   conjunction with specific video compression standards.  This type of

   discussion would overload the present memo.

   In so far, this memo follows the guidance of a decade of RTP payload

   format specification work -- the details of the media format carried

   is normally not described in any significant detail."

22. Section 3.5.4.4 talks about reliability. I am not sure it is applicable to point o point calls or to an MCU case. It is more for multicast. If this it correct than it should say so.

I don't get this remark.  Are you suggesting TMMBR is primarily for multipoint/cast?  No, it's not.  Part for the rush with the WGLC is that we have TMMBR in TS 26.114 (MTSI), which is point-to-point at present.  And the reliability discussion applies IMHO for both P2P and multipoint (of whatever kind); it's about what happens when you loose the RTCP RR carrying the message, and that can happen in all scenarios.  So could you please elaborate further what should be changed here?

RE: When reading the second paragraph I cannot see how it applies to point to point or MCU case since in those cases there is only participant requesting the BW change (the other party or the MCU)

________________________________