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

[Robert Sparks <[e-mail]>]

I've requested IETF LC for this document - watch for its announcement soon.

RjS

On 11/15/12 5:59 PM, Fang, Zheng wrote:
>
> Hi Robert, Chung Cheung,
>
> Thanks again for your feedbacks.  I've just submitted an updated 
> version (draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw-08 
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw-08>) based on 
> these feedbacks.  Please let me know if you have any additional 
> suggestions.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Zheng
>
> *From:*Chung Cheung Chu [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Friday, October 26, 2012 8:53 AM
> *To:* Robert Sparks; [e-mail]
> *Cc:* Fang, Zheng
> *Subject:* RE: [payload] Fwd: AD Review: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw-07
>
> Hi Robert,
>
> The suggested text is good.  I am okay with it.  Thank you.
>
> Regards,
>
> CC
>
> Chung-Cheung Chu
> ECN:       810-16713
> External: [phone]   or   [phone] x46489
>
> /This Communication is Confidential.  We only send and receive email 
> on the basis of the terms set out at www.ericsson.com/email_disclaimer 
> <http://www.ericsson.com/email_disclaimer>./
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*Robert Sparks [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* October-25-12 5:50 PM
> *To:* Chung Cheung Chu
> *Cc:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; Fang, Zheng
> *Subject:* Re: [payload] Fwd: AD Review: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw-07
>
> The important part is in the restructuring of the sentence.
>
> That said, I don't agree that instantaneous is the appropriate word to 
> use here, and it's usually a warning sign that the text needs 
> clarification when arguing about choosing words that have similar 
> meanings. (Exactly what instant is this instantaneous capability 
> describing?)
>
> So perhaps this instead:
>      The EVRC-NW interleaved/bundled format defines an encoding capability
>      identification flag, which is used to signal the local EVRC-NW
>      wideband/narrowband encoding capability at the time of 
> construction of an RTP packet
>      to the far end of a communication session.
>
> RjS
>
> On 10/25/12 4:26 PM, Chung Cheung Chu wrote:
>
>     Hi Robert,
>
>     Regarding the comment below relating to a text from Ericsson, I
>     agree that the proposed change does improve the readability of the
>     sentence.  Thank you.  However, I notice that the word "current"
>     has been suggested to replace "instantaneous". The word
>     "Instantaneous" was chosen deliberately to reflect explicitly the
>     dynamic nature of the encoding capability in a call session.
>     Unless there is a strong objection, I would counter-propose to
>     keep the use of "instantaneous" instead of "current".
>
>     - 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.
>
>     Regards,
>
>     CC
>
>     Chung-Cheung Chu
>     Ericsson
>
>     /This Communication is Confidential.  We only send and receive
>     email on the basis of the terms set out at
>     www.ericsson.com/email_disclaimer
>     <http://www.ericsson.com/email_disclaimer>./
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     *From:*[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Robert Sparks
>     *Sent:* October-24-12 10:27 AM
>     *To:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Subject:* [payload] Fwd: AD Review: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw-07
>
>     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 <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>     *To: *
>
>     	
>
>     [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>     *CC: *
>
>     	
>
>     Gonzalo Camarillo <[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>     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/
>