[rmcat] Review of draft-ietf-rmcat-cc-codec-interactions-01

Bo Burman <bo.burman@ericsson.com> Fri, 18 December 2015 11:47 UTC

From: Bo Burman <bo.burman@ericsson.com>
To: "rmcat@ietf.org" <rmcat@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Review of draft-ietf-rmcat-cc-codec-interactions-01
Thread-Index: AdE5f9RUe4zel9lNSQiwdutc9A83pA==
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:47:43 +0000
Message-ID: <BBE9739C2C302046BD34B42713A1E2A22E90C7E5@ESESSMB105.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: sv-SE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BBE9739C2C302046BD34B42713A1E2A22E90C7E5ESESSMB105erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rmcat/LvrtlS4uir3Glxcf3WXQETIc2bk>
Subject: [rmcat] Review of draft-ietf-rmcat-cc-codec-interactions-01
Precedence: list

I have reviewed this draft and find it fairly complete and well written. I think it gives a good overview of aspects to consider when making use of CC in an application using delay-sensitive transmission of real-time media.

It is however somewhat unclear to me how this document is intended to be used and who the intended readers are. I assume it could be codec designers, various API design efforts, CC developers, and media application developers, to list a few possible examples. It may be useful to give a few such examples early on in the document.

Considering that the document is today:

1)      mainly informational without any really mandatory RFC 2119-type statements (although there are 2119-like language), and

2)      not really defining or putting strict requirements on a detailed API or any "reference design";
Is Standards Track the right target, or should it rather be Informational?

Cheers,
Bo

[rmcat] Review of draft-ietf-rmcat-cc-codec-inter… Bo Burman