[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 [127.0.0.1]) 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-Level:
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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (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 ([4.30.77.1]) (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: 4.30.77.1 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. RjS -------- 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, avtcore-chairs@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 communication session. - 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/
- [payload] Fwd: AD Review: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc… Robert Sparks
- Re: [payload] Fwd: AD Review: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-… Chung Cheung Chu
- Re: [payload] Fwd: AD Review: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-… Robert Sparks
- Re: [payload] Fwd: AD Review: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-… Chung Cheung Chu
- Re: [payload] Fwd: AD Review: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-… Fang, Zheng
- Re: [payload] Fwd: AD Review: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-… Robert Sparks