Re: [Fecframe] AD Review: draft-ietf-fecframe-rtp-raptor

["Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <[e-mail]>]

Note that it is not avtcore who should review this draft but it is payload wg. Also, the controller should be the Payload WG.

-acbegen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Thomas Stockhammer
> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 1:39 PM
> To: David Harrington
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Fecframe] AD Review: draft-ietf-fecframe-rtp-raptor
> 
> Dave, all
> 
> thanks for the comments, please find inline responses.
> In addition to the comments, the references are separated in normative and informative.
> 
> I do think we can move the RTP payload also to WGLC, but thus may have to happen in AVTCORE.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Thomas
> 
> > Can you get a revised ID asap?
> 
> [T] A revised ID is prepared and has been uploaded here http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-fecframe-rtp-raptor-
> 05.txt
> 
> > AD Review of draft-ietf-fecframe-rtp-raptor-04:
> > It would be good to use RFC2119 keywords in active voice - "The implementer SHOULD
> > select" (or is it the operator?) rather than "It is RECOMMENDED to select".
> > For example, I recommend changing "The (integer) rate SHALL be larger than 1000".
> > Whose responsibility is it to enforce this SHALL? MUST implementations
> > reject values less than 1000? (if implementations don't enforce this, I don't know
> > how you'll enforce this SHALL. Which means a user MAY choose a lower value;
> > therefore this isn't really a MUST. yada yada yada ...
> > So you should use active voice to be explicit about whose responsibility it is to enforce this MUST. (and similar to RFC 3665,
> MUST is for implementers; SHOULD is for users).
> 
> [T] It is the responsibility of the operator to pick a value of 1000 at least. This has been made clear in the revision.
> 
> > in 5.1.1, rate definition.
> > "rate: The RTP timestamp (clock) rate in Hz. The (integer) rate
> > SHALL be larger than 1000 to provide sufficient resolution to RTCP
> > operations. However, it is RECOMMENDED to select the rate that matches the rate of
> > the protected source RTP stream." The However in this paragraph makes it
> > sound like you recommend using the rate that matches (even if it is below 1000).
> > I recommend removing the "However,"
> 
> [T] Done
> 
> > in 5.1.1, s/shall/SHALL/
> 
> [T] Done
> 
> > "Restrictions on usage: This media type depends on RTP framing, and hence is only
> > defined for transfer via RTP [[RFC3550]]. Transport within other framing protocols
> > is not defined at this time. " Do we need the "at this time"? Is it envisioned this
> > media type will be exteneded for additional framing protocols at a later time?
> 
> [T] Yes, this may indeed happen. We have seen similar generalization for other formats recently, such as the MPEG-2 TS. So
> it is considered  important to avoid any confusion and make it clear that the registration is for RTP only.
> 
> > in 12 s/recommended/RECOMMENDED/, s/may/MAY/g
> 
> [T] Done
> 
> > in 8, is Session Announcement Protocol (SAP) [RFC2947] the right reference? I saw no mention of SAP in 2947.
> 
> [T] This is indeed wrong, it needs to be RFC2974. Thanks!
> 
> 
> > in 15.2, rfc2947 seems to refer to the wrong document. I think you
> > need 2974.
> 
> [T] See above
> 
> > in 1, "Repair data flows may be sent directly over a transport protocol
> > such as UDP, or they may be encapsulated within RTP." Is RTP the only
> > protocol that could be used to encapsulate flows? should this be "they may be
> > encapsulated within specialized transports for multimedia, such as RTP"?
> 
> [T] Agreed! Despite nothing is defined today, it be in the future. I have changed accordingly.
> 
> > s/FECs operates/FECs operate/
> 
> [T] Done
> 
> > s/an FEC/a FEC/
> 
> [T] Done
> 
> > Shepherd, Since AVT is the change controller, was this WGLC'd in AVT?
> 
> [T] No this was not yet done. It would be good to send out the Raptor schemes for WGLC. Once this is done, I will send out a
> message to the AVT list reporting the status of the Raptor schemes and this payload format and ask if WGLC'd in AVT can be
> issued. Is this appropriate?
> 
> Thomas
> 
> >
> > Thanks,
> > David Harrington
> > Director, IETF Transport Area
> > [e-mail] (preferred for ietf)
> > [e-mail]
> > [phone] (cell)
> >
> 
> ---
> Dr. Thomas Stockhammer (CEO) || [e-mail] || phone [phone] || cell [phone] ||
> http://www.nomor-research.com
> Nomor Research GmbH  -  Sitz der Gesellschaft: München - Registergericht: München, HRB 165856 – Umsatzsteuer-ID:
> DE238047637 - Geschäftsführer: Dr. Thomas Stockhammer, Dr. Ingo Viering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Fecframe mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe