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

"Fang, Zheng" <zfang@qualcomm.com> Thu, 15 November 2012 23:59 UTC

Return-Path: <zfang@qualcomm.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 35A651F0C44 for <payload@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:59:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 shwyiglKXnbR for <payload@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:59:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sabertooth01.qualcomm.com (sabertooth01.qualcomm.com [65.197.215.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF45D1F041A for <payload@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:59:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1353023053; x=1384559053; h=from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date: message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language: content-language:x-ms-has-attach:x-ms-tnef-correlator: x-originating-ip:content-type:mime-version; bh=S3qcJpl7x51O90anZczgbMOOnmLMUT4Hx8qV3TF51WA=; b=kGoNG1QPJrmEN3Y5Yd8PAKNaDAKuEWpArMktTuzxcLIUUhlMQf0Qmf2C ujVPopETOVqaa1g3Rq5mszYZuozYnVE+nF94hp3z508+46rKoA1Wq889m WZxMjCshjkAeV2ttA44lrWvIMuTpnYqSnA16mKc7Imb4NSBlpfKEYvajY A=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6897"; a="7209657"
Received: from ironmsg04-r.qualcomm.com ([172.30.46.18]) by sabertooth01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 15 Nov 2012 15:44:09 -0800
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6897"; a="426689551"
Received: from nasanexhc06.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.21]) by Ironmsg04-R.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 15 Nov 2012 15:59:14 -0800
Received: from NASANEXD01A.na.qualcomm.com ([169.254.1.5]) by nasanexhc06.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.21]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:59:13 -0800
From: "Fang, Zheng" <zfang@qualcomm.com>
To: Chung Cheung Chu <chung.cheung.chu@ericsson.com>, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>, "payload@ietf.org" <payload@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [payload] Fwd: AD Review: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw-07
Thread-Index: AQHNsfOo390+zGVrdUqBUH2Af2DXXpfLACGAgAAGuQCAAS6VgIAfgDPQ
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 23:59:13 +0000
Message-ID: <E23CE350F3C94C4A834B4E7069CA56792229CBBF@nasanexd01a.na.qualcomm.com>
References: <5086FAD4.8070301@nostrum.com> <5087FABC.6010902@nostrum.com> <26490BBDEEACA14EA1A0070367B3ADBDC42E2FBFA7@EUSAACMS0702.eamcs.ericsson.se> <5089B412.9010505@nostrum.com> <26490BBDEEACA14EA1A0070367B3ADBDC42E38C6F6@EUSAACMS0702.eamcs.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <26490BBDEEACA14EA1A0070367B3ADBDC42E38C6F6@EUSAACMS0702.eamcs.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.30.39.5]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E23CE350F3C94C4A834B4E7069CA56792229CBBFnasanexd01anaqu_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "Sinder, Dan" <dsinder@qti.qualcomm.com>
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: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 23:59:21 -0000

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:chung.cheung.chu@ericsson.com]
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 8:53 AM
To: Robert Sparks; payload@ietf.org
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: +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<http://www.ericsson.com/email_disclaimer>er>.


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