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

Roni Even <> Tue, 04 October 2011 15:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 706E921F8CE3 for <>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 08:54:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.312
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.312 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.286, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Fi9MDfaPzlMS for <>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 08:54:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 749BB21F8CEF for <>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 08:54:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (szxga04-in []) by (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <> for; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 23:57:48 +0800 (CST)
Received: from ([]) by (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <> for; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 23:57:48 +0800 (CST)
Received: from windows8d787f9 ([]) by (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <>; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 23:57:48 +0800 (CST)
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 17:55:04 +0200
From: Roni Even <>
In-reply-to: <>
To: "'Fang, Zheng'" <>,
Message-id: <037101cc82ae$043c8fe0$0cb5afa0$>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_yNQjhJjW18P76QPYwKs7Rw)"
Content-language: en-us
Thread-index: AcxdnNfq/+ON2T4BTFKgzifiLMZLbwIopyFwBvqrU4AAILpqQA==
References: <008801cc5d9c$dd1eb400$975c1c00$> <02b501cc663f$a40278e0$ec076aa0$> <>
Cc: "'Huang, Pengjun \(Jeff\)'" <>, "'Sinder, Dan'" <>, "'Wang, Min'" <>, "'Kandhadai, Ananthapadmanabhan \(Ananth\)'" <>
Subject: Re: [payload] WGLC on draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw-03
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Payloads working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 15:54:48 -0000

Hi Zheng,

See inline



From: Fang, Zheng [] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 2:44 AM
To: Roni Even;
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


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





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



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

[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


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.



Roni Even 



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



I would like to start a Working Group Last Call on
<>  , 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