Return-Path: X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD15521F8B03 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 07:50:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wRrqBepN15xj for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 07:49:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from mxout.myoutlookonline.com (mxout.myoutlookonline.com [64.95.72.243]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1EF421F8AB9 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 07:49:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from mxout.myoutlookonline.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mxout.myoutlookonline.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9052E416990; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 04:48:25 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: by SpamTitan at mail.lan Received: from HUB027.mail.lan (unknown [10.110.2.1]) by mxout.myoutlookonline.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D29434169ED; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 04:48:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from BE235.mail.lan ([10.110.32.235]) by HUB027.mail.lan ([10.110.17.27]) with mapi; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:49:42 -0500 From: Jonathan Lennox To: "mmusic@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard@tools.ietf.org" Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:49:41 -0500 Thread-Topic: SDP Directorate review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard Thread-Index: Ac3cbfjzJEY5mo6KTkmb8kup78CGAw== Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C3759687E4991243A1A0BD44EAC823034DFB915B07BE235maillan_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [MMUSIC] SDP Directorate review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:50:01 -0000 --_000_C3759687E4991243A1A0BD44EAC823034DFB915B07BE235maillan_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have been asked to perform the SDP Directorate review for draft-ietf-xrbl= ock-rtcp-xr-discard. I reviewed the -10 version of the document. Syntactically, the SDP usage in this document seems fine. It is a simple a= nd correct usage of an extension point defined in RFC 3711. However, the statement in Section 4 that "XR blocks MAY be used without exp= licit signaling" is confusing, as it implies that the entire SDP section is= entirely optional. This document should at least reference Section 5 of R= FC 3711, which gives guidance as to when SDP signaling of the use of XR blo= cks is recommended. In the IANA considerations section, I echo Adam Roach's comments on the bur= st-gap-lost draft: the full and proper names of the IANA registries should = be spelled out. These are the "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP= XR) Block Type Registry" in Section 5.1, and the "RTP Control Protocol Ext= ended Reports (RTCP XR) Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters Regis= try" in Section 5.2. Additionally, the last sentence of section 4.2 is not correct English. The= sentence For detailed usage in Offer/Answer for unilateral parameter, refer to se= ction 5.2 of [RFC3611]. should be For detailed usage of Offer/Answer for unilateral parameters, refer to s= ection 5.2 of [RFC3611]. -- Jonathan Lennox jonathan@vidyo.com --_000_C3759687E4991243A1A0BD44EAC823034DFB915B07BE235maillan_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I have been aske= d to perform the SDP Directorate review for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-disc= ard. I reviewed the -10 version of the document.

 

Syntactically, the SDP u= sage in this document seems fine.  It is a simple and correct usage of= an extension point defined in RFC 3711.

 

However, the statement in Sectio= n 4 that "XR blocks MAY be used without explicit signaling" is co= nfusing, as it implies that the entire SDP section is entirely optional.&nb= sp; This document should at least reference Section 5 of RFC 3711, which gi= ves guidance as to when SDP signaling of the use of XR blocks is recommende= d.

 

In the IANA considerations section, I echo Adam Roach's comments on th= e burst-gap-lost draft: the full and proper names of the IANA registries sh= ould be spelled out.  These are the "RTP Control Protocol Extende= d Reports (RTCP XR) Block Type Registry" in Section 5.1, and the "= ;RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR) Session Description Protoc= ol (SDP) Parameters Registry" in Section 5.2.

 

Additionally, the la= st sentence of section 4.2 is not correct English.  The sentence<= /o:p>

 

&nb= sp;  For detailed usage in Offer/Answer for unilateral parameter, refe= r to section 5.2 of [RFC3611].

&nbs= p;

should be

 

   For detailed usag= e of Offer/Answer for unilateral parameters, refer to section 5.2 of [RFC36= 11].

 

--

Jonathan Lennox

jonathan@vidyo.com

 

= --_000_C3759687E4991243A1A0BD44EAC823034DFB915B07BE235maillan_--