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

[Robert Sparks <[e-mail]>]

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./
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] *On 
> Behalf Of *Robert Sparks
> *Sent:* October-24-12 10:27 AM
> *To:* [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]>
> To: 	[e-mail], [e-mail], 
> [e-mail]
> CC: 	Gonzalo Camarillo <[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/
>
>
>