Re: [payload] I-D Action: draft-ietf-payload-rtp-aptx-01.txt

Brief scan, one question:

Is it possible to offer a stable reference for what "Standard apt-x" and 
"Enhanced apt-x" means?

The closest I can get is "licensed by CSR plc", which presumably means 
that "it means what CSR plc thinks it means", but it would be great to 
have that stated explicitly.

Something like:

The codecs "apt-x" and "Extended apt-x" are defined by CSR plc, an UK 
company.

Section 3 of the draft *almost* says that, but isn't completely 
unambiguous ("licensed by" can mean both "CSR is a licensor" and "CSR is 
a licensee, someone else defines it").

I *think* this is a nit.

On 09/10/2013 03:50 PM, John Lindsay wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> A new draft has been uploaded to the IETF Payload workgroup at 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/payload/.
>
> The new document makes a few minor changes for IDNITS checking and 
> also takes account of the comments made by Peter Stevens last week.
>
> A summary of the changes are as follows.
>
> Page 1, IETF Copyright notice updated to 2013.
>
> Page 10, updated formatting for IDNITS check.
>
> Page 14, Section 6 updated to reflect RFC 6838 which supersedes RFC 4288.
>
> Page 16, Section 6.2.1 type corrected An -- A as per Peter Stevens 
> comments.
>
> Page 18, Section 7 now reference 6.1 rather than 7.1, again thanks to 
> Peters proof reading.
>
> Page 21, new RFC6338 referenced.
>
> Thanks to everyone who has read and commented on the draft.
>
> Regards
>
> John
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> payload mailing list
> payload@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/payload