[MMUSIC] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-mmusic-rid-14: (with COMMENT)
Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 17 April 2018 00:11 UTC
Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietf.org
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F4B9127873; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 17:11:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-mmusic-rid@ietf.org, Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com>, mmusic-chairs@ietf.org, fandreas@cisco.com, mmusic@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.78.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <152392390447.26084.8630666548463367333.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 17:11:44 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/GiRjHVoMFzMjYU-Vn5fhxKcx3p8>
Subject: [MMUSIC] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-mmusic-rid-14: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mmusic/>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 00:11:45 -0000
Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-mmusic-rid-14: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-rid/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (Meta-comment - thanks for helping me understand what's going on in Section 8, when discussing my previous Discuss) If "rid" actually means something, it might be nice to expand it in the Abstract and Introduction. After the first couple of pages, I was guessing that it means something like "RTP Stream Identifier", based on a quick scan of https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-avtext-rid-09, but that draft doesn't ever expand "rid" or use "rid" in the text, so then I think I'm wrong, because this draft also uses "rid-id", and I'm guessing that's probably not "RTP Stream Identifier Identifier". By the time I get down to Section 5, I decide it means "Restriction Identifier", but then I'm not any happier that I'm guessing "rid-id" means "Restriction Identifier Identifier" :-) I'm confused by the SHOULD NOT in o max-fps, for frame rate in frames per second. For encoders that do not use a fixed framerate for encoding, this value should restrict the minimum amount of time between frames: the time between any two consecutive frames SHOULD NOT be less than 1/max- fps seconds. The related description of max-pps, also uses a SHOULD, but explains why excursions outside this value are permissible. (I'm also confused by "this value should restrict the minimum amount of time between frames" - I saw that you're using RFC 8174 for keywords, but is this just saying "this value restricts the minimum amount of time between frames", or something else?) I note that 8.1 and 8.2 both include something like Both correspond to restrictions on receiver capabilities, and never indicate sending restrictions. Is that true for all format parameters, for all codecs? If so, perhaps that should be explicit, in one of the normative sections (in which case, it wouldn't be useful here). If not, are implementations supposed to know what to do?
- [MMUSIC] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-i… Spencer Dawkins
- Re: [MMUSIC] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on dra… Adam Roach