[payload] Review of draft-ietf-payload-melpe-04

[Carlos Pignataro <[e-mail]>]

Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro
Review result: Has Nits

Hi,

This document is mostly ready but has some potential issues:

1. Normative statements -- there are a number of "recommended" and
"shall" among "RECOMMENDED" and "SHALL". It would not hurt to revise
and confirm the normative level of each of these.

Specifically, a couple of these relate to one operational aspect of
Default values:
E.g.:
          Note: The default value shall be the respective parameters
          from the vocoder frame.  It is recommended that msvq[0] and
          gain[1] values be derived by averaging the respective
          parameter from some number of previous vocoder frames.

Should thouse be normative / uppercase as per its operational
implications?

2. References

It is not entirely clear to me that the references are adequately
split in Normative vs. Informative.

I understand these three for example are not produced by the IETF; but
are they necessary to understand the spec?

   [MELP] Department of Defense Telecommunications Standard,
"Analog-to-
   Digital Conversion of Voice by 2,400 Bit/Second Mixed Excitation
   Linear Prediction (MELP)", MIL-STD-3005, December 1999.

   [MELPE] North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), "The 600 Bit/S,
   1200 Bit/S and 2400 Bit/S NATO Interoperable Narrow Band Voice
   Coder", STANAG No. 4591, January 2006.

   [SCIP210] National Security Agency, "SCIP Signaling Plan",
SCIP-210,
   December 2007.

Also, sure, a google search can find them (I believe), but is there an
authoritative pointer (URI) where these can be normatively found?

Thanks,

-- Carlos.