IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Tsv-art] [Perc] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-perc-private-media-framework-08

"Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> Sat, 16 February 2019 07:06 UTC

Return-Path: <paulej@packetizer.com>
X-Original-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6284A12D4E7; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 23:06:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=packetizer.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tlbLeFzQe7w9; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 23:06:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dublin.packetizer.com (dublin.packetizer.com [IPv6:2600:1f18:24d6:2e01:e842:9b2b:72a2:d2c6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68A9B1277D2; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 23:06:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from authuser (localhost [127.0.0.1])
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=packetizer.com; s=dublin; t=1550300799; bh=NICydiXCB1iGhnPHuhTObo0DSRAccfqZPNDdrfCxTzA=; h=From:To:Subject:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:Reply-To; b=dr750xGV+PeatM5pCKeQHpD3d0htVK0/c0S1SAt819tKD7JVgdQ4B43R6sLUEo1Rc YIowjzfAiUytkUsT2FdbYn2s9GoXryeEpxeTa/t7i/LINMhjdPvF/56Eu/xYScyOCj PwGBBzlAzRaeu8imaJx5ZOD3eeOda9iLF59de8oQ=
From: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Cc: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, tsv-art@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-perc-private-media-framework.all@ietf.org, perc@ietf.org
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 07:06:35 +0000
Message-Id: <em73312304-80e3-4016-b4d8-dc027e9db9db@sydney>
In-Reply-To: <4B985943-DDA4-42EE-B6FD-F567A5841F75@nostrum.com>
References: <154930159870.28630.16457371613620717540@ietfa.amsl.com> <em99f9a1ec-e503-4a74-a0c9-0b58b55d0a1e@sydney> <4B985943-DDA4-42EE-B6FD-F567A5841F75@nostrum.com>
Reply-To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
User-Agent: eM_Client/7.2.34208.0
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------=_MBCF828596-1F7A-46A2-88B0-35135603390A"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/ier6_sytT1aWJeTK1kKWC1q1kAM>
Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] [Perc] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-perc-private-media-framework-08
X-BeenThere: tsv-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Review Team <tsv-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsv-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsv-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 07:06:49 -0000

Thanks, Ben.  I wasn't aware of this list.  I've expanded as appropriate 
in my local copy.  That should appear in the next version.

Paul

------ Original Message ------
From: "Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com>
To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
Cc: "Gorry Fairhurst" <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>; tsv-art@ietf.org; 
ietf@ietf.org; draft-ietf-perc-private-media-framework.all@ietf.org; 
perc@ietf.org
Sent: 2/16/2019 12:47:21 AM
Subject: Re: [Perc] Tsvart last call review of 
draft-ietf-perc-private-media-framework-08

>I have a comment on one point, below:
>
>>On Feb 15, 2019, at 10:08 PM, Paul E. Jones <paulej@packetizer.com> 
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Some keywords appear not defined before first used - whilst these are 
>>>likely
>>>to be well-known by the coimmunity of interest, it would 
>>>none-the-less
>>>be helpful to define these:
>>>
>>>SRTP; RTCP; SIP; SDP.
>>
>>Most of these have a reference that follows them (RTCP was the one 
>>exception, I think). Are you saying we should fully state what SRTP 
>>stands for, for example, or are you saying references were missing?
>
>Abbreviations should be expanded except for those listed as 
>“well-known” by the RFC editor, whether or not they have a citation. 
>The list is at 
>https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt . Well-known 
>abbreviations are marked with an asterisk.
>
>To save you from searching: SIP is marked as well-known. SRTP, RTCP, 
>and SDP are not.
>
>Thanks!
>
>Ben.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email