[Gen-art] Genart early review of draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-scip-01

Stewart Bryant via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 30 June 2022 08:51 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietf.org
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF41AC15D89E; Thu, 30 Jun 2022 01:51:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Stewart Bryant via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: avt@ietf.org, draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-scip.all@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 8.5.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <165657911797.26995.16593394647908130312@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 01:51:57 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/UqpTwkxRsJyLZHQA9FAqx8R0z4o>
Subject: [Gen-art] Genart early review of draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-scip-01
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 08:51:58 -0000

Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
Review result: Ready with Issues

This simple document is adequate to register the media type as is. There are
however a few small issues that could usefully be addressed.

The introduction could usefully be expanded to include a couple of sentences on
context and a direct reference to the protocols rather than a pointer to the
IANA registry from which the reader has to get a pointer to the protocol.
Bringing forward some material from the background to the introduction or
merging the two sections would achieve this.

The RFC 2119 language is not the latest version:

      The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
      "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as
      described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they
      appear in all capitals, as shown here.

I am surprised that the nits checker did not bring this up.

In the text SCIP is sometimes capitalised and sometimes in lower case, they
clearly mean different things but I could not see any text in the document that
clarified the semantics of each variant.

The references SCIP210 and SCIP214 are shown as informational. I assume that as
much as anything this is because they are not widely available and strictly you
could just treat them as opaque, but given they are fundamental to what you are
standardising I would have expected them to be normative.