Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-mmusic-msid-13

-14 addressed all of my previous nits.  I just noticed one nit in -14:

* In Section 3. "Procedures", "si2gnal" should be "signal".

There is one outdated reference (draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation, -29 vs -30), that I assume will be addressed before publication.

- m&m

Matt Miller
Cisco Systems, Inc.

> On Jun 15, 2016, at 4:05 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
> 
> Thanks! Were these comments noted by the authors? Or possibly even addressed in -14?
> 
> Jari
> 
> On 25 May 2016, at 03:29, Matt Miller (mamille2) <mamille2@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review
>> Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for
>> the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just like any other last call
>> comments.
>> 
>> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>> 
>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>> 
>> Document: draft-ietf-mmusic-msid-13
>> Reviewer: Matthew A. Miller
>> Review Date: 2016-05-24
>> IETF LC End Date: 2016-05-24
>> IESG Telechat date: N/A
>> 
>> Summary:
>> 
>> This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard once
>> some minor editorial nits are address.
>> 
>> Major issues:  NONE
>> 
>> Minor issues:  NONE
>> 
>> Nits/editorial comments:
>> 
>> * idnits is complaining that something smells of code that isn't bounded.
>> However, I think it is clear that the "suspicious text" is the detailed
>> SDP example, and is already clearly noted as such.
>> 
>> * idnits warns of a number of outdated references, which I assume will
>> be updated with the next revision of this document or by the RFC Editor:
>> 
>> - draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes-02
>> - draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep-07
>> - draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-07
>> - draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-10
>> 
>> * In Section 1.1. "Structure Of This Document", there is a spacing issue
>> in "WebRTC[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-overview] ."
>> 
>> * In Section 2. "The Msid Mechanism", there is an extra "." in
>> "... defined in [W3C.WD-webrtc-20150210]., and to ...".
>> 
>> * In Section 3.1. "Handling of non-signalled tracks", some of the
>> phrasing in the third paragraph seems awkward to me.  Might I suggest
>> the following instead:
>> 
>>  When MSID is used, the only time this can happen is when, after the
>>  initial negotiation, a negotiation is performed where the answerer
>>  adds a MediaStreamTrack to an already established connection and
>>  starts sending data before the answer is received by the offerer.
>>  For initial negotiation, packets won't flow until the ICE candidates
>>  and fingerprints have been exchanged, so this is not an issue.
>> 
>> * Also in Section 3.1. "Handling of non-signalled tracks", I think the
>> sentence after the bullet list ought to be split in two between "entered"
>> and "If":
>> 
>>  The process above may involve a considerable amount of buffering
>>  before the stable state is entered.  If the implementation wishes to
>>  limit this buffering, it MUST signal to the user that media has been
>>  discarded.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gen-art mailing list
>> Gen-art@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
> 