[XCON] AD review: draft-ietf-xcon-examples-06
Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Tue, 14 September 2010 16:02 UTC
Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: xcon@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xcon@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix)
with ESMTP id 9A5073A69D0 for <xcon@core3.amsl.com>;
Tue, 14 Sep 2010 09:02:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.473
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.473 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.127,
BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com
[127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6K8CJBYqrTaJ for
<xcon@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 09:02:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net
[IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id
8FE073A6986 for <xcon@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 09:02:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.105] (pool-173-71-48-4.dllstx.fios.verizon.net
[173.71.48.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with
ESMTP id o8EG2cqP010063 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128
verify=NO) for <xcon@ietf.org>;
Tue, 14 Sep 2010 11:02:38 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 11:02:38 -0500
Message-Id: <F487BB01-8783-466E-AD5A-00FD926FD089@nostrum.com>
To: xcon@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 173.71.48.4 is authenticated by a trusted
mechanism)
Subject: [XCON] AD review: draft-ietf-xcon-examples-06
X-BeenThere: xcon@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Centralized Conferencing <xcon.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon>,
<mailto:xcon-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xcon>
List-Post: <mailto:xcon@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xcon-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon>,
<mailto:xcon-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:02:20 -0000
Summary: There are a few issues to address before moving this document
to IETF Last Call
* This document is not as easy to read as the ccmp and data model
documents. I suggest an additional editorial pass focusing on
tightening the prose.
* Section 4 (Working with CCMP) states the document has "recommendations
from an implementation point of view". I'm not finding those. Could
they be called out in a separate "Advice to Implementers" section, or
did they all move to the CCMP document already (in which case, the above
statement should be removed)?
* The end of 4.1 talks about a "placeholder wildcard". It should explicitly
mention AUTO_GENERATE_X and point to the definition of the mechanism in
the CCMP document.
* The end of section 4.3 moves into the realm of speculation, particularly
around Figure 3. This needs to be more clearly labeled as speculation, and
not recommendation or specification. The section is motivating different
standards work rather than showing examples of implementing what's already
been specified. I strongly suggest removing it from the draft and
re-introducing one or more concrete proposals separately, calling out
at most in this draft that other mechanisms are possible and are the
subject of future standardization discussions.
* Figure 5 is redundant with Figure 4 - all of the anchors for the
annotations are already in Figure 4. I suggest deleting Figure 5.
* Why doesn't the example in section 6.2 use the mute control?
If that's inappropriate, it would be good to add text to this
section explaining why. If it is a valid alternative, please call
that out.
* Section 6.5 calls out a situation as a "(first-party join)". Where
is this phrase defined?
* Can Section 7.2 better motivate why a sidebar is being used here instead
of a separate new conference?
- [XCON] AD review: draft-ietf-xcon-examples-06 Robert Sparks
- Re: [XCON] AD review: draft-ietf-xcon-examples-06 Mary Barnes
- Re: [XCON] AD review: draft-ietf-xcon-examples-06 Robert Sparks