Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus-08

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

>> Minor Issues: I previously gave the following comment:
>>  
>> “Regarding SDP, I think it would be good to have the ABNF syntax for 
>> the a=fmtp parameter (currently you only have descriptive text of the 
>> different parameters). It makes the life for the parser implementers 
>> much easier :)”
>>  
>> I guess one, by reading section 7 and the examples, can figure out how 
>> to encode the a=fmtp parameter, but I think it would to explicitly 
>> define the syntax.
>
> (For the record, I just recently took over responsibility for PAYLOAD, so if I'm misinterpreting things, someone please tell me :-)  )
>
> While I can see that as a "might be nice" addition, I don't think it's something that we have required of other payload drafts. 

After all my years of taking drafts through the IETF publication process, I have learned that there is no such thing as consistency :)

> draft-ietf-payload-rtp (in RFC ed queue) says the following about ABNF for SDP parameters:
>
> "Not that commonly used in RTP payload formats but may be useful when defining Media Type parameters of some complexity."
>
> If I'm reading correctly, the FMTP parameters in this draft fit the pretty common "semicolon delimited list of parameter=value pairs", so I don't think this rises to the level of "some complexity".
>
> So unless you think the parameters in this draft are more complex than average, I don't think we need to add them at this late stage. It might be worth discussing whether we should ask authors of future payload drafts to include ABNF for this sort of thing.

I can live without any changes.

Regards,

Christer