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

[Greg Shepherd <[e-mail]>]

Ali,

It's still a FF doc and needs to LC here, but are you saying Payload
WG also needs LC rather than just review?

Greg

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Ali C. Begen (abegen)
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Fecframe mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe
>