Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-mix-14

[Gunnar Hellström <[e-mail]>]

Version -17 of the draft is submitted, with intention to have all Genart 
and Secdir review comments resolved.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-mix/

There is also an HTML version available at:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-mix-17.html

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-mix-17


Regards

Gunnar

-- 
Gunnar Hellström
GHAccess
[e-mail]


Den 2021-05-07 kl. 21:14, skrev Peter Yee:
> Responses prefixed with [PEY] below.
>
> 		Kind regards,
> 		-Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gunnar Hellström [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, May 07, 2021 11:36 AM
> To: Peter Yee; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-mix-14
>
> Continuing with comments and edit proposals from "Nits/editorial
> comments:" below.
>
> Den 2021-05-06 kl. 05:41, skrev Peter Yee via Datatracker:
>> Reviewer: Peter Yee
>> Review result: Ready with Issues
>> 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
>> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>> Document: draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-mix-14
>> Reviewer: Peter Yee
>> Review Date: 2021-05-05
>> IETF LC End Date: 2021-05-03
>> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
>> Summary: This draft specifies updates to RFC 4103 to allow real-time text
>> mixing for both multiparty-aware and multiparty-unaware participants. It has
>> some minor issues that should be addressed before publication. [Ready with
>> issues]
>> Nits/editorial comments:
>> Change “multiparty capable” to “multiparty-capable” throughout the document.
> [GH] I suggest to change to "multiparty-aware" instead for consistency.
>
> [PEY] Fine by me.
>
>> Page 6, section 1.1, 2nd paragraph: insert “are” before “as”.
> [GH] Recently changed to just "are defined in" by proposal in another
> review. I suggest to keep that.
>
> [PEY] Agreed.
>
>> Page 6, “multiparty-unaware”: change “stands for” to “describes”.
> [GH] Accepted and done.Your use of hyphen in "multiparty-unaware" made
> me understand that that term also should be hyphenated all through the
> document. Done.
>
> [PEY] Yes, I failed to include that hyphenation in the general nits although I marked all of them in my review copy.
>
>> Page 29, “BOM”, 1st sentence: insert “it” before “SHALL”.
> [GH] Accepted, but part of the first statement is separated out to a
> sentence of its own: "  It SHALL be deleted from incoming streams."
>
> [PEY] That's fine. I didn't fuss so much over sentence structure for the definitions.
>
>> Page 32, section 6.1, title: drop the “e.g.” in the subsection title.
> [GH] Not done. Many countries have their own terms for textphones. In
> USA and a few other countries (Canada, Australia) they are called TTY.
> That term is not understood in other countries. "Textphone" may not be
> understood in USA. Therefore I prefer having both the general term and
> the (e.g., TTYs) in the heading.
>
> [PEY] With that understanding, I'm fine leaving an examples or two in the body text. As a matter of style, I don't think examples should appear in the title, but I won't argue the point. It's only style. :-)
>
>> Page 32, section 6.1, 2nd paragraph, parenthetical: perhaps you want “i.e.,”
>> instead of “e.g.” here given that further down you put “TTYS” in another
>> parenthetical as though it weren’t just an example but the only exemplar of
>> this type of device under discussion.
> [GH] No. I did not mean "i.e.,". "TTY" is just one example with specific
> technology.
>
> So, I suggest to keep this sentence:    "One case that may occur is a
> gateway to PSTN for communication with textphones (e.g., TTYs)."  While
> in the other places where (TTY) was mentioned it is deleted with its
> parenthesis.
>
> [PEY] Okay.
>
>> Page 32, section 6.1, 2nd paragraph, last sentence: delete “make”. Change
>> “adaptions” to “adapt”. Delete “for” before “the functional”. Delete “(TTY)”.
> [GH] I also needed to insert "to" before "adapt" to make:
>
> "This solution makes it possible to adapt
>      to the functional limitations of the textphone."
>
> [PEY] I'm fine with the that sentence.
>
> Thanks again for the thorough review. I have next version ready, also
> including changed caused by security comments and discussed in other mail.
>
> Do you want me to submit the new version.
>
> [PEY] If you have no further changes pending from other reviews, it probably makes sense to submit a new version with everything incorporated. I admit that I didn't thoroughly check the diffs between -14 and -16 to see if any of my proposed changes clashed.
>
>
> Regards
>
> Gunnar
>
-- 
Gunnar Hellström
GHAccess
[e-mail]