[Gen-art] Re: Gen-ART review of draft-jones-avt-audio-t38-05

["Spencer Dawkins" <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Paul,

Allison actually does the followup from this point on - watch this space for 
news you can use :-)

(I noticed that the earliest version of this draft actually used 2026 
language, because that's what was current then - I feel your pain! Best 
wishes for your future work at the IETF)

Thanks,

Spencer


> David,
>
>> Summary: Well, given that this document is being balloted for publication
>> as
>> Historic, I'm not sure what criteria I should be using for the review, 
>> but
>> I'll assume the bar is lower for Historic than for the original Proposed
>> Standard.
>
> "Historic" is a regrettable decision, in my opinion.  But, what can I say?
>
>> Given that it's now two years later than the requested ITU-T date for an
>> RFC
>> number, and the reason for publication as Historical is so we can
>> explicitly
>> deprecate the use of audio media types for image payloads, I'd suggest
>> NO-OBJ.
>
> The ITU published the latest version of T.38 in 2004 and simply did not
> include the reference to this document.  In fact, since this document 
> exists
> merely to complete the picture by registering a MIME type, the delayed
> publication has not been a major issue.  (However, such delays have 
> resulted
> in some MIME types being standardized which are not and will not be
> registered with IANA.  What's the point? ;-) )
>
>> At least some of Ned Freed's notes still seem to apply (for example -
>> using
>> RFC 3362 as a pointer for UDPTL when RFC 3362 doesn't mention UDPTL),
>
> The intent was not to reference UDPTL by way of 3362.  UDPTL is defined in
> T.38, so perhaps to address this concern we should add [1] after UDPTL?
>
>> and
>> the "does not parse" text Steve Bellovin flagged hasn't changed.
>
> What does not parse?
>
>> Of course, no surprise that the boilerplate is outdated (since the draft
>> is
>> older than RFC 3978)...
>
> Yes... what year is it now? ;-)  Actually, I don't even recall what the
> boilerplate is supposed to look like versus what this one has.  In any 
> case,
> I'll be happy to change it as necessary.  Is there a document containing 
> the
> proper template that I can use as a reference?
>
>> >From Nits checking:
>>
>> idnits 1.84
>>
>>   Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:
>>
>>     Checking conformance with RFC 3978/3979 boilerplate...
>>
>>   * The document seems to lack an RFC 3978 Section 5.1 IPR Disclosure
>>     Acknowledgement -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching
>> beginning.
>>     Boilerplate error?
>
> If I recall, this text was proposed for use before the guidelines were 
> laid
> down in an RFC.  Even so, folks new the rules were changing and this was a
> "best guess" at the format.
>
>>   * The document seems to lack an RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line --
>>     however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate
>> error?
>
> Same issue, I think.
>
>>   Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt:
>>   - It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0
>> form
>>     feeds but 8 pages
>
> Not sure why.  My copy actually does have FF characters between pages.  In
> any case, this can be addressed by me sending another copy or by 
> submitting
> a new draft with an updated boilerplate.
>
> Let me know how we should proceed.
>
> Paul
>
> 


_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art