[codec] AD review: draft-ietf-codec-guidelines-04

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Thu, 29 September 2011 19:13 UTC

Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: codec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: codec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA14521F8EC5 for <codec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 12:13:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.086
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.086 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.514, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VGpuaSUvNfe4 for <codec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 12:13:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B5F821F8EC0 for <codec@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 12:13:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.105] (pool-173-71-46-224.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [173.71.46.224]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p8TJGbXf021157 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:16:37 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:16:37 -0500
Message-Id: <F1CDB47F-9FD6-494E-BD0B-7418465C8AC3@nostrum.com>
To: codec@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 173.71.46.224 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: draft-ietf-codec-guidelines@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [codec] AD review: draft-ietf-codec-guidelines-04
X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec WG <codec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/codec>
List-Post: <mailto:codec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 19:13:59 -0000

Summary: There are some minor points to address with a revised ID before IETF Last Call.

Section 4 Item 1 should be scoped to codecs produced by this working group - the sentence
right now appears to try to place a requirement on any future work done on codecs in the IETF.

Section 4 item 2 needs to be clear that the software repository is not the authoritative container for
the reference implementation, the RFC is. In particular, this is not requiring the IETF to maintain
the software repository.

Section 6 Item 1 should be tweaked to say "speech codec". Watch for opportunities to clarify this
throughout the document, keeping the comments received for the title of the requirements document
(see <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-codec-requirements/ballot/>).


Nits

Section 2 point 8 should mention the PAYLOAD working group, not AVT

Section 4 point 5 - PLC should be expanded once. Also consider pointing to the
requirements document from this item.

Section 5 before the second bulleted list: IRP should be IPR