Re: [avtext] AD Eval of draft-ietf-avtext-rtp-grouping-taxonomy-06

Thanks, Ben.  I'll let Bo, as editor, comment on the editorials/nits but I'll offer my perspective on the two major issues you raise.

Responses inline...

On May 3, 2015, at 11:55 PM, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com<mailto:ben@nostrum.com>> wrote:

Hi,

Here's my AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-avtext-rtp-grouping-taxonomy-06. Nothing here is sufficient to delay the IETF last call, but I'd like to at least see a response to the subtsantive comments.

Thanks!

Ben.

----------------

Substantive Comments:

-- I do not object to this being informational per se, but I wonder if people expect it to be normatively references by future standards track documents. Remember that a reference should be normative if it is needed to understand the dependent document. Terminology references often fall squarely into that category. If the answer is yes, has there been any considerations that this draft may need to be standards track?

There seems to be some subjectivity here based on some related discussions in the past with Pete Resnick on similar type documents. This can, does and will have documents referencing it normatively.  In fact, there is a document with the RFC Editor now that is being held up because of a normative reference to this document (as you are likely familiar: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp/).  From that perspective I think this is Standards Track, but again,

-- Along the same lines, all the references informational. Could a reader be expected to understand this draft without reading _any_ of the references? I recognize this may not be important for an informational draft that is not a technical specification. But it may be more important if standards track docs normatively reference this doc.

Nits and Editorial Comments:

-- Abstract: "... attempts to define..."

Is there a concern that it may not have succeeded?  :-)

-- Section 1, 1st sentence:

Do you think RTP terminology will continue to be confusing and inconsistent after this draft is published? Also, please expand RTP in the first use in the body. (In addition to the abstract.)

-- 2.1.2:

Do you consider the meaning of the term "Media" to be clear enough that it doesn't need a definition here?

I find it hard to parse the following sentence:

"This data is due to its periodical sampling, or at least being timed asynchronous events, some form of a stream of media data. "

-- 2.1.2, 2nd bullet list entry:

s/support/supports

-- 2.1.4, first sentence

I find the sentence hard to parse:

-- 2.1.5

Was the "raw stream" not also time-progressing?

-- 2.1.9, first bullet list entry:

I can't parse the sentence. Is there a missing word towards the end?

-- 2.1.18 "... alarm subsequent transformations ... "

Do you mean "alert"?

-- 2.2.3, first bullet list entry:

is the SIP URI example assumed to be an Address of Record? If so, it might be worth mentioning that, since a SIP URI could also point to a device, and a participant might have more than one.

-- 3.7, last paragraph, 2nd sentence:

Sentence is convoluted and hard to read. Please consider splitting it into multiple simpler sentences.

-- 3.8, first paragraph, 2nd sentence:

Convoluted sentence.

-- 3.9, last paragraph:

Convoluted sentence.

-- 3.10, last paragaph, last sentence:

Convoluted sentence.

-- 3.11, last paragraph : "This requires to either use..."

Missing noun?  ("This requires XXX to use either", or "This requires the use of either...")

3.13, first paragraph, last sentence:

I can’t parse the sentence—is there a word missing? (i.e. “… and smaller number of flow based…”)?

_______________________________________________
avtext mailing list
avtext@ietf.org<mailto:avtext@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avtext