Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-siprec-protocol-16

[Peter Yee <[e-mail]>]

Charles,

	Looks pretty good to me.  Thanks for considering my suggestions.

		Kind regards,
		-Peter

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Charles Eckel (eckelcu) [mailto:[e-mail]]
>Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 4:24 PM
>To: Peter Yee; [e-mail]
>Cc: [e-mail]; IETF Discussion Mailing List
>Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-siprec-protocol-16
>
>Hi Peter,
>
>Thanks for your detailed review and great comments. I¹ve added proposed
>resolutions inline.
>
>On 5/16/15, 4:16 AM, "Peter Yee" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
>>Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
>><http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>
>>
>>Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
>>you may receive.
>>
>>
>>Document: draft-ietf-siprec-protocol-16
>>Reviewer: Peter Yee
>>Review Date: May-15-2015
>>IETF LC End Date: May-15-2015
>>IESG Telechat date: TBD
>>
>>Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed
>>standard but has open issues, described in the review. [Ready with
>>issues]
>>
>>The draft specifies entities and a protocol using SIP, SDP, and RTP for
>>recording communication sessions.  It provides the ability to notify
>>UAs that they are being recorded and for UAs to notify the recording
>>system of their recording preference.
>>
>>The document is well written and has no obvious major technical issues.
>>
>>
>>Major issues: None
>>
>>Minor issues:
>>
>>
>>Page 21, section 8.1.4, last sentence: what does “appropriately".
>>Specify where is the appropriate interpretation defined or provide it
>>here.
>
>I propose replacing
>"interpret the CSRC list appropriately when received." with "interpret the
>CSRC list per RFC 3550 when received."

That seems like a helpful clarification.

>>Nits:
>>
>>NB: Anything below marked with an asterisk before the line is a
>>technical change; the rest are purely editorial and of lesser importance.
>
>Lots of good catches here and all suggested changes made with the few
>exceptions noted inline.
>
>>Page 15, section 7.2, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: Would this sentence
>>be more correct if rewritten for clarity as: "When the SRS is ready to
>>receive recorded streams, the SRS sends a new SDP offer and sets the
>>a=recvonly attribute in the media streams.²?
>
>I think either construction gets the point across. It left as is in order
>to
>be consistent with the structure of the previous sentence.

Okay.

>>Page 33, last paragraph, 2nd sentence: Why not state this in the
>>affirmative: ³Any subsequent partial updates will only be dependent on
>>the metadata sent in this full metadata snapshot and any intervening
>>partial updates.²
>
>I find the current construction to be simpler.

As you wish. :-)

>Thanks so much,
>Charles