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

Chung Cheung Chu <chung.cheung.chu@ericsson.com> Fri, 26 October 2012 15:53 UTC

Return-Path: <chung.cheung.chu@ericsson.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 C5E9321F8574 for <payload@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Oct 2012 08:53:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.156
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.156 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.442, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 zDCAbVx8I2N3 for <payload@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Oct 2012 08:53:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F39BF21F85D5 for <payload@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Oct 2012 08:53:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id q9QFuL2d006721; Fri, 26 Oct 2012 10:56:45 -0500
Received: from EUSAACMS0702.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.98]) by eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) with mapi; Fri, 26 Oct 2012 11:53:10 -0400
From: Chung Cheung Chu <chung.cheung.chu@ericsson.com>
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>, "payload@ietf.org" <payload@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 11:53:09 -0400
Thread-Topic: [payload] Fwd: AD Review: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw-07
Thread-Index: Ac2y+r86Ys6NQm7OTyyaasRoN7ulwQAltBqA
Message-ID: <26490BBDEEACA14EA1A0070367B3ADBDC42E38C6F6@EUSAACMS0702.eamcs.ericsson.se>
References: <5086FAD4.8070301@nostrum.com> <5087FABC.6010902@nostrum.com> <26490BBDEEACA14EA1A0070367B3ADBDC42E2FBFA7@EUSAACMS0702.eamcs.ericsson.se> <5089B412.9010505@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <5089B412.9010505@nostrum.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_26490BBDEEACA14EA1A0070367B3ADBDC42E38C6F6EUSAACMS0702e_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [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: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 15:53:31 -0000

Hi Robert,

The suggested text is good.  I am okay with it.  Thank you.

Regards,

CC

Chung-Cheung Chu
ECN:       810-16713
External: +514-461-6713   or   +514 345-7900 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.



________________________________
From: Robert Sparks [mailto:rjsparks@nostrum.com]
Sent: October-25-12 5:50 PM
To: Chung Cheung Chu
Cc: payload@ietf.org; 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>er>.



________________________________
From: payload-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:payload-bounces@ietf.org> [mailto:payload-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert Sparks
Sent: October-24-12 10:27 AM
To: payload@ietf.org<mailto:payload@ietf.org>
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 <rjsparks@nostrum.com><mailto:rjsparks@nostrum.com>
To:     draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw@tools.ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw@tools.ietf.org>, avt@ietf.org<mailto:avt@ietf.org>, avtcore-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:avtcore-chairs@ietf.org>
CC:     Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com><mailto: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/