[payload] Fwd: AD Review: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw-07

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Wed, 24 October 2012 14:27 UTC

Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: payload@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: payload@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76B9D21F8ACD for <payload@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 07:27:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1Q7MfV7+pozu for <payload@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 07:27:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A4FB21F8AC9 for <payload@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 07:27:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unnumerable.local ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q9OER6bf058627 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <payload@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:27:07 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <5087FABC.6010902@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:27:08 -0500
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: payload@ietf.org
References: <5086FAD4.8070301@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <5086FAD4.8070301@nostrum.com>
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <5086FAD4.8070301@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060506070002030000000404"
Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Subject: [payload] Fwd: AD Review: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw-07
X-BeenThere: payload@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Payloads working group discussion list <payload.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/payload>, <mailto:payload-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/payload>
List-Post: <mailto:payload@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:payload-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/payload>, <mailto:payload-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:27:08 -0000

Forwarding this to the correct list.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	AD Review: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw-07
Date: 	Tue, 23 Oct 2012 15:15:16 -0500
From: 	Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
To: 	draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw@tools.ietf.org, avt@ietf.org, 
CC: 	Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>

Summary: The document should be revised before IETF LC.

Primary Concern:

- This document needs to point to RFC6562, at least in the security
considerations section and
possibly in section 11. I think the reference needs to be normative.

Minor Concerns and Nits:

- Section 8 refers backto a "mapping" in Section 4, but it's not clear
that there's a mapping there.
I suggest adding a note that ToC values are taken from the value column
in the table of section 4.

- This sentence from Section 6.1 does not parse well:
      The EVRC-NW interleaved/bundled format defines an encoding capability
      identification flag, which is used to signal the far end of a
      communication session of the instantaneous local EVRC-NW wideband/
      narrowband encoding capability.
   Would this replacement work?
      The EVRC-NW interleaved/bundled format defines an encoding capability
      identification flag, which is used to signal the current local EVRC-NW
      wideband/narrowband encoding capability to the far end of a

- in Section 9.1.1:
      When this media type is used in the context of transfer over RTP, the
      RTP payload format specified in Section 4.1 of RFC 3558 [6] SHALL be
      used.  In all other contexts, the file format defined in Section 8
      SHALL be used.  See Section 6 for details for EVRC-NW.
   It needs to be clearer that you are talking about Section 7 and 6 of
_this_ document.
   I suggest saying "Section 8 of RFCXXXX" and "Section 6 of RFCXXXX"
and add a note
   to the RFC Editor asking them to replace XXXX with the RFC number of
this document.

- Section 5 paragraph 1: Suggest s/in a manner consistent with/as
specified in/