[MMUSIC] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-mmusic-t140-usage-data-channel-12: (with COMMENT)

[Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mmusic-t140-usage-data-channel-12: 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-t140-usage-data-channel/



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

** I support Martin Duke’s DISCUSS position.

** Section 5.4
Initially:
“As a T.140 data channel does not provide a mechanism for the receiver to
identify retransmitted  T140blocks after channel reestablishment, the sending
endpoint MUST NOT retransmit T140blocks unless it has strong indications  that
a T140block has been lost during the data channel failure.”

Later:
“Different mechanisms used by sending and receiving endpoints to detect or
suspect text loss are outside the scope of this specification.”

How is this normative MUST NOT supposed to be evaluated if the the explanation
of “strong indications” is not explained in this document and no reference is
provided?