Re: [MMUSIC] Progressing the rid draft (RTP Payload Format Constraints)

[Peter Thatcher <[e-mail]>]

Having just re-read draft-ietf-mmusic-rid-02 from to top to bottom, I think
it's in a very good state.  I only have minor readability and editorial
comments where I think it could be improvements.


On small matters of readability:

- We use the term "RID RTP streams", which is then defined in another spec
as "source RTP Streams".  Can we just call them "source RTP streams" here
too and save the reader some indirection?

- We use the terms "constraints", "parameters" and even "constraining
parameters", which I believe all mean the same thing.  Can we just pick one
and save the reader some disambiguation?

On the open issues:

11.1 (declarative SDP): I agree with keeping the current text.

11.2 (bitrate definition): I agree with keeping the current text.

11.3 (escaping values): I agree with option #3 (let a future extension
define it, if needed).

11.4 (max-width and max-height): Either way is fine to me (included or not).

11.5 (max-fps definition): I agree with keeping the current text.


And finally, some very minor editoral things:

- The sentence "All "rid" parameters MUST be registered ... Section 12"
doesn't have a period at the end.

- The sentence "The SDP given below skips few lines" should be "The SDP
given below skips a few lines".



On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Flemming Andreasen <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Greetings MMUSIC
>
> As you know, we have an external dependency and a fairly aggressive
> timeline on the RTP Payload Format Constraints draft (
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-rid/)
>
> We haven't seen much list traffic on this draft since the Yokohama meeting
> and hence would like to remind people to please take a look at and post any
> comments you may have on the draft. If you have read the current version of
> the draft and don't have any comments on it, we would like to hear about
> that too.
>
> Thanks
>
> -- Flemming (as MMUSIC co-chair)
>
>
>