[MMUSIC] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel-23: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel-23: 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-msrp-usage-data-channel/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work put into this document esp. for the new authors as it
appears that this document had a rough ride.

Please find below a couple of non-blocking COMMENTs.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

-- Section 1 --
"Compared to WebSockets, which provide...", I found no references to back up
all claims about WebRTC (e.g., nothing about "telemetry"). Adding some
informative references would help the reader.

-- Section 4.1 --
Out of curiosity, what does "dc" stands for ? Data-channel ? While not
required, a short explanation would be nice to the reader.

-- Section 4.8 --
It is nice to have an example but using IPv4 in an example in 2020... humm....
a little bit outdated ? ;-)

-- Section 5.4 --
The rest of the document is about 'data channel' but this section uses 'SCTP
stream'. AFAIK, they are the same in the WebRTC world but some consistent
language would be better (as I am not a WebRTC expert, I can be wrong). Should
SCTP be an informative reference?