Re: [payload] WGLC on draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw-03

[Roni Even <[e-mail]>]

Hi Zheng,

See inline

Roni

 

From: Fang, Zheng [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 2:44 AM
To: Roni Even; [e-mail]
Cc: Wang, Min; Sinder, Dan; Huang, Pengjun (Jeff); Kandhadai,
Ananthapadmanabhan (Ananth); Fang, Zheng
Subject: RE: [payload] WGLC on draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw-03

 

Hi Roni,

 

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. I updated the draft based on
your suggestions. Please find attached the modified text and diff. 

 

I am not sure how to address some of the comments. My answers to those
questions are in line. I would appreciate it if you could further comment on
it. 

 

I will submit a new version once I resolve all the comments. 

 

Thanks!

Zheng

 

From: Roni Even [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 4:35 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Fang, Zheng
Subject: RE: [payload] WGLC on draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw-03

 

Hi,

I reviewed the draft and have some comments.

 

1.       It looks to me that this draft updates RFC3558 similar to RFC 4788
and RFC 5188.  It should be referenced in the header and in the text

[Zheng] Although the payload definition of EVRCNW is similar to EVRCWB (RFC
5188), EVRCB (RFC 4788) and EVRC (RFC 3558), the current draft only defines
the payload format for EVRCNW only. This is different than that of RFC 5188,
which not only defines a new MIME type (EVRC-WB) but also update an existing
MIME type (EVRC-B in RFC 4788). 

 

[roni] OK

2.       In section 6 first paragraph why not reference 3788 where ToC is
defined.

[Zheng] Reference is added. 

 

3.       In second 9 in the registration template you have sendmode
deprecated. This is strange since this registration is a new registration so
there is nothing to deprecate . If you want to state that this optional
parameter that is used in other EVRC modes is not used, please do it in
another section and not in the registration section.

[Zheng] The sendmode descriptions are removed from the registration
templates. Instead a comment on it is added in Section 10 "SDP mode
attributes for EVRC-NW".

 

4.       In section 9 in the published specification you mention RFC3558
without a reference. I think that this document need also to be specified
since it defines the RTP header and the usage.

[Zheng] References are added. 

 

5.       In section 9 in the author field add your email address

[Zheng] Done. 

 

6.      In section 9  change controller should be " IETF Audio/Video
Transport working group delegated from the IESG."

[Zheng] I am a little confused. The changed controller was indeed the same
as you mentioned. Can you please point it out in case I miss anything? 

[roni} my mistake should be "IETF Payload working group delegated from the
IESG"

 

7.      In section 13 how is "mode-set-recv" used in declarative SDP since
it is a decoder capability and not an encoder one.

[Zheng] In some two-way conversation scenarios, the traffics can be
asymmetric, i.e, incoming and outgoing streams use different sets of modes.
It is sufficient to declare decoder capability and the encoder at the other
side simply follows. 

[roni] Declarative is a one way announcement like in SAP for streaming
media, so there is no encoder at the other side.

 

Thanks

Roni Even 

 

 

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
Of Roni Even
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 2:49 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [payload] WGLC on draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw-03

 

Hi,

I would like to start a Working Group Last Call on
draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw-03
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw-03>  , RTP payload
format for Enhanced Variable Rate Narrowband-Wideband Codec  (EVRC-NW)

 

The WGLC will end on September 9, 2011

Please review the draft and send comments to the list.

 

 

Roni Even

Payload co-chair