Re: [AVT] Comments on draft-ietf-text-red-00.txt

Paul,

Comments inline.

Paul E. Jones wrote:

>Got it.. it's now MAY.  As a general question, why would capitalization
>suggest a different meaning?
>  
>
This is due to that you have defined to have a separate meaning when you 
include the following statement in regards to RFC 2119.
      The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
      NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED",  "MAY", and
      "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
      RFC 2119.

The reason why you do this is that in most case you desire to separate 
the cases when something really must be followed, i.e. being normative, 
and when it is only for information and does not carry necessary the 
same strict meaning. You really should read RFC 2119, its only 3 pages.

>Well, this is a good question.  Clearly, I know what the end result is
>to
>be, but how should this be written?  The text I am using was borrowed
>from
>RFC 3555, which uses the same notation.  Please suggest specific changes
>to
>clarify this.
>
>  
>

I think we need to resolve what discrepancy we have between RFC 2198 and 
RFC 3555 before being able to close this issue. However I don't think 
that much text is required, just being explicit about it.

>>>      
>>>
>>When you are in the SDP domain, you SHOULD NOT / SHALL NOT use the
>>pt=content-type structure at all. As the information is available in
>>    
>>
>the
>  
>
>>SDP as defined PT. Therefore you only need to reference these PTs. So
>>when having SDP should you in fact remove all of these pt=content-type
>>declarations and only use PTs in the list?
>>
>>I would also like to point out that the this declaration of
>>"dynamic-payload-type "=" content-type" is not sufficiently clear. For
>>RTP payload formats using parameters to configure this, this string is
>>insufficient unless the parameter list can be included in the
>>content-type part.
>>    
>>
>
>Ah, I understand.  As I mentioned above, this follows the example in RFC
>3555, which also does not go into discussion on this (as far as I know).
>I
>assume the reason for that was simply that the entire focus was on SDP,
>anyway, with little focus on MIME, really.
>
>In any case, I can add text in this regard, but I need some guidance as
>to
>what we should have inserted to make this clearer.
>
>  
>
I would definitely like to have some more input from Colin and others 
about how this problem should be resolved.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund 

Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
Torshamsgatan 23           | Fax   +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com

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