[avtext] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-avtext-splicing-notification-07: (with COMMENT)
"Mirja Kuehlewind" <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Thu, 16 June 2016 13:21 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
X-Original-To: avtext@ietf.org
Delivered-To: avtext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 216E112D5F0; Thu, 16 Jun 2016 06:21:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.22.2
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20160616132105.10512.95243.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 06:21:05 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avtext/OL4dfcOvziN3uNYPcmVfXs2pqCc>
Cc: draft-ietf-avtext-splicing-notification@ietf.org, avtext@ietf.org, jonathan@vidyo.com, avtext-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: [avtext] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-avtext-splicing-notification-07: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: avtext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Extensions working group discussion list <avtext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/avtext>, <mailto:avtext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/avtext/>
List-Post: <mailto:avtext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avtext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avtext>, <mailto:avtext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 13:21:05 -0000
Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-avtext-splicing-notification-07: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtext-splicing-notification/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I moved my discuss points into the comment now assuming that the discussed changes will be applied in the next version. I still support Alia's discuss, as this point must be addressed carefully, and I would like to review the next before final publications. - The following action does not seem to be appropriate for a specification of an end-to-end protocol: "And if the splicer wishes to prevent the downstream receivers from detecting splicing, it MUST NOT forward the message." I guess if a middlebox decides to drop the message, there is not much we can do. But I definitely would prefer to not see this specified in an RFC. - Why is just having the RTCP message not sufficient? Why are the RTP extensions needed as well? - And is the RTCP message send only once or multiple time? This is not specified. - There is some discussion about the implementation of the slicer in section 5 (where btw. the title "Failure Cases" seems inappropriate), while there is one sentence saying: "If the splicer is implemented following [RFC6828], it will have its own SSRC and will send its own RTCP reports, and will forward translated RTCP reports from the receivers." Why are alternatives discussed here, if there is already a recommendation given in RFC6828? And how would proper congestion handling be ensure in the other setups not described in RFC6828? - As a general comment, I found it quite hard to read this doc without reading RFC6828 which is only listed as a informative reference as it is informational only. I think it is wrong. Further, RFC6828 describes some action that a slicers has to perform. However, all language in RFC6828 is non normative. This is slightly confusing to me as well. I would further recommend to briefly give an overview of the assumed scenario is this document. - Minor comment: The definition of the new SDP grouping semantic should be mentioned in the abstract and RFC4566 should be referenced. And I don't think the SDP grouping registry requires a contact. - Quick question: Maybe I'm missing something here but why do you need a splicer in a scenario where "the substitutive sender is implemented together with the main RTP sender inside a single device" (as written in section 2)?
- [avtext] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-… Mirja Kuehlewind