Re: [payload] [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus-08

"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 15 April 2015 13:56 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus.all@virtual.ietf.org
Delivered-To: payload@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 2E41E1B3526; Wed, 15 Apr 2015 06:56:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus.all@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus.all@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1266F1B3522 for <xfilter-draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus.all@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Apr 2015 06:56:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7OiUVzo478Nd for <xfilter-draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus.all@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Apr 2015 06:56:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (zinfandel.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C3A21B349F for <draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus.all@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Apr 2015 06:56:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from raven-v6.nostrum.com ([2001:470:d:1130::1]:34298 helo=nostrum.com) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX) (envelope-from <ben@nostrum.com>) id 1YiNoF-000768-SP for draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus.all@tools.ietf.org; Wed, 15 Apr 2015 06:56:57 -0700
Received: from [10.0.1.23] (cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t3FDuaSG073914 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 15 Apr 2015 08:56:46 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4] claimed to be [10.0.1.23]
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 08:56:35 -0500
Message-ID: <431C8AC8-B068-4A06-9017-964A4C145C04@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D79A1AA@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D7939BB@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <14C2C001-48AE-4142-8E64-2D066EFC380A@nostrum.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D79A1AA@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.1r5084)
X-Helo-Check-Failed: Verification failed for HELO nostrum.com
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2001:470:d:1130::1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus.all@tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ben@nostrum.com
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org)
Resent-To: draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus.all@ietf.org
Resent-Message-Id: <20150415135657.4C3A21B349F@ietfa.amsl.com>
Resent-Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 06:56:57 -0700
Resent-From: ben@nostrum.com
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus.all@tools/R7f7OFpMX4GKtLV0zXZ9BJJzGHc>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/payload/XZ_HShMi78B991sPGGphz7veo0I>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 14:35:05 -0700
Cc: "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus.all@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [payload] [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus-08
X-BeenThere: payload@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 13:56:58 -0000

On 15 Apr 2015, at 4:38, Christer Holmberg wrote:

> Hi,
>
>>> Minor Issues: I previously gave the following comment:
>>>  
>>> “Regarding SDP, I think it would be good to have the ABNF syntax 
>>> for
>>> the a=fmtp parameter (currently you only have descriptive text of 
>>> the
>>> different parameters). It makes the life for the parser implementers
>>> much easier :)”
>>>  
>>> I guess one, by reading section 7 and the examples, can figure out 
>>> how
>>> to encode the a=fmtp parameter, but I think it would to explicitly
>>> define the syntax.
>>
>> (For the record, I just recently took over responsibility for 
>> PAYLOAD, so if I'm misinterpreting things, someone please tell me :-) 
>>  )
>>
>> While I can see that as a "might be nice" addition, I don't think 
>> it's something that we have required of other payload drafts.
>
> After all my years of taking drafts through the IETF publication 
> process, I have learned that there is no such thing as consistency :)
>

That is absolutely true. And I do think it's worth discussing whether 
future payload specs should do that. It's just a matter of who gets 
stuck with a new documentation requirement :-)

>> draft-ietf-payload-rtp (in RFC ed queue) says the following about 
>> ABNF for SDP parameters:
>>
>> "Not that commonly used in RTP payload formats but may be useful when 
>> defining Media Type parameters of some complexity."
>>
>> If I'm reading correctly, the FMTP parameters in this draft fit the 
>> pretty common "semicolon delimited list of parameter=value pairs", so 
>> I don't think this rises to the level of "some complexity".
>>
>> So unless you think the parameters in this draft are more complex 
>> than average, I don't think we need to add them at this late stage. 
>> It might be worth discussing whether we should ask authors of future 
>> payload drafts to include ABNF for this sort of thing.
>
> I can live without any changes.

Thanks!

>
> Regards,
>
> Christer