RE: [AVT] FW: I-D Action:draft-ietf-avt-rtp-svc-04.txt

Thomas,

I am reading the svc draft and as long as you address non technical
parts I noticed that the definitions in section 5.1 are different from
the SVC (H.264 amendment 3) for the same terms. I suggest that the
definitions should be the same or use different names.

The same comment for section 3.3 comparing to G.7.4.1.1 for the U and RR
bits specifically.

Roni

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Schierl [mailto:schierl@hhi.fhg.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 7:36 PM
> To: 'Colin Perkins'
> Cc: avt@ietf.org; Even, Roni; 'Stephan Wenger'; tom.taylor@rogers.com
> Subject: RE: [AVT] FW: I-D Action:draft-ietf-avt-rtp-svc-04.txt
> 
> Hi Colin,
> 
> Ok, I will try to fix the formatting before the conference call next
week.
> 
> Happy new year!
> Thomas
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Colin Perkins [mailto:csp@csperkins.org]
> > Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 7:59 PM
> > To: Thomas Schierl
> > Cc: avt@ietf.org; 'Even, Roni'; 'Stephan Wenger';
tom.taylor@rogers.com
> > Subject: Re: [AVT] FW: I-D Action:draft-ietf-avt-rtp-svc-04.txt
> >
> > Thomas,
> >
> > On 18 Dec 2007, at 18:15, Thomas Schierl wrote:
> > > I just submitted the -04 version of the RTP payload draft for SVC.
> > > Besides other changes, I corrected the formatting of the media
type
> > > section.
> >
> > There are so many formatting changes and problems with this version
> > it's very difficult to find the technical changes. Please can you
> > ensure that future versions of the draft have consistent formatting,
> > such that diff tools can be used (the xml2rfc tool is extremely
> > useful here).
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --
> > Colin Perkins
> > http://csperkins.org/
> 
> 
> 
> ----
> Visit us at
> 
> FOE 2008 (8th Fiber Optics Expo) / Tokio Big Sight, Japan / 16 - 18
> January 2008 / Booth 2 - 50
> http://www.foe.jp/english

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