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

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Gonzalo,

I saw Keith's mail first, and replied to it. Please let me know if that 
failed to cover anything from your email.

Thanks!

Ben.
On 5 May 2015, at 5:39, Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei) wrote:

> Sorry, writing this on phone and hit send prematurely.
>
>
> 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 
> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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, thi seems 
> a matter of opinion and I'm fine either way.
>
> -- 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.
>
> Again, I agree that there are Normative references, though I think for 
> the purpose of a taxonomy document they can be used sparingly and 
> there is I need to delay publication with a normative reference to an 
> I-D.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Gonzalo
>
>
> 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
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avtext