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

["Fang, Zheng" <[e-mail]>]

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/