Re: [payload] WGLC for draft-ietf-payload-rtp-ancillary-08

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 6:26 AM, John Fletcher <John.Fletcher@bbc.co.uk>
wrote:

> This memo is likely to be used as a normative reference in a SMPTE
> standard.  In SMPTE documents, the normative words are not capitalised.
> Therefore I think it is best that normative words are only used in a
> normative context, regardless of the capitalisation.
>
[sb]In my opinion that's not an IETF issue.  Clarity on what is normative
and what isn't normative is.  RFC2119-update is an option (and future
payload RFCs will be using it's conventions anyway).  So I'm with Stephan
here. [/sb]

>
> John
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Stephan Wenger [stewe@stewe.org]
> *Sent:* 20 April 2017 18:21
> *To:* John Fletcher; Ali C. Begen; payload@ietf.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [payload] WGLC for draft-ietf-payload-rtp-ancillary-08
>
> John,
> With the soon-to-be RFC https://datatracker.ietf.
> org/doc/draft-leiba-rfc2119-update/ (which clarifies that only
> CAPITALIZED keywords carry normative weight), your various points about the
> use of normative language in a non-normative context seem moot, no?  No
> language gymnastics needed.  Seems to me that ancillary draft authors had
> that change in mind…  or is your comment directed to a user community where
> capitalization of keywords does not matter (like in the IETF back in the
> days)?
> In order to get that unambiguously right, the authors may want to change
> the RFC to RFC2119 to the rfc2119-update draft.  That draft shouldn’t be
> too long in the RFC editor’s queue anymore, so there ought to be no
> additional delay.
> Stephan
>
> From: payload <payload-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of John Fletcher <
> John.Fletcher@bbc.co.uk>
> Date: Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 03:22
> To: "Ali C. Begen" <ali.begen@networked.media>, "payload@ietf.org" <
> payload@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [payload] WGLC for draft-ietf-payload-rtp-ancillary-08
>
> Apologies for slightly late comments but ...
>
> In section 2.1, definition of "C" bit, HD signals are mentioned but not
> UHD.  I think the definition really depends on whether the SDI interface
> uses separate data channels for luma and color-diff, so perhaps the
> specification could be re-worded along those lines.  At the very least, say
> "HD and UHD signals".
>
> Specifications about RTP timestamp clock rate appear in section 3.1 as
> part of the media format parameters but I think these should be in section
> 2 as part of the timestamp definition.  Section 3.1 should just say that
> the Rate parameter is required.
>
> Section 1, Introduction, uses normative word "should" in "It should be
> noted that".  I suggest changing to "Note that".
>
> In section 3.1, the normative word "may" is used in "implementers may
> care" and "may not care".  It's not appropriate to give implementers
> permission or to forbid them from caring.  I suggest changing to "might".
>
> In section 3.1, "those that must interoperate with", I suggest deleting
> "must".
>
> In section 4, "the ancillary data stream may potentially contain", suggest
> changing to "might" to indicate possibility rather than permission.
>
> In section 4.1, the normative word "may" is used in "implementers may wish
> to".  It's not appropriate to give implementers permission to wish.  I
> suggest deleting "to wish".
>
> In section 5, again we have "may with", I think meant to be "may wish".  I
> suggest changing to "might wish" in this case.  Other uses of "may" in this
> section seem fine but should be capitalised.
>
> In section 7, "It may still be a good idea", suggest changing "may" to
> "might".
>
> In section 7, "receivers should take care to", I suggest deleting "take
> care to".
>
> Some uses of "required" in the memo are not specifying normative
> requirements, suggest re-wording or changing to "needed".
>
> Several occurrences of "may", "must", "should", "required" and "optional"
> are not capitalised.
>
> Regards,
> John
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* payload [payload-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of Ali C. Begen [
> ali.begen@networked.media]
> *Sent:* 04 April 2017 15:49
> *To:* payload@ietf.org
> *Subject:* [payload] WGLC for draft-ietf-payload-rtp-ancillary-08
>
> WG,
>
> We will run another WGLC on this draft as there have been some significant
> changes since we ran the WGLC earlier.
>
> Please have a look at the draft (at least to the diff) and send your
> comments to the list by April 19th.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-payload-rtp-ancillary-08
>
> Thanks.
> -acbegen (co-chair)
>
>
>
> ----------------------------
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk
> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal
> views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
> If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
> Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in
> reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
> Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
> Further communication will signify your consent to this.
>
> ---------------------
>
>
>
> ----------------------------
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk
> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal
> views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
> If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
> Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in
> reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
> Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
> Further communication will signify your consent to this.
>
> ---------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> payload mailing list
> payload@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/payload
>
>