[apps-discuss] Applications Area Directorate Review of draft-ietf-avtcore-avp-codecs-02
Bert Greevenbosch <Bert.Greevenbosch@huawei.com> Thu, 13 June 2013 08:06 UTC
Return-Path: <Bert.Greevenbosch@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D59221F9A6A; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 01:06:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.782
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.782 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.817, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m-N+B-t39RwR; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 01:06:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FC4921F9A75; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 01:06:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id ASK38001; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 08:06:20 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 09:06:04 +0100
Received: from SZXEML412-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.91) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 09:06:09 +0100
Received: from szxeml558-mbx.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.152]) by szxeml412-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.91]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 16:06:05 +0800
From: Bert Greevenbosch <Bert.Greevenbosch@huawei.com>
To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-avtcore-avp-codecs.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-avtcore-avp-codecs.all@tools.ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Applications Area Directorate Review of draft-ietf-avtcore-avp-codecs-02
Thread-Index: Ac5oDNerh7dhbvRBRF2N44qjOGB5Zw==
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 08:06:04 +0000
Message-ID: <46A1DF3F04371240B504290A071B4DB63D77C5C7@szxeml558-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.66.162.63]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Subject: [apps-discuss] Applications Area Directorate Review of draft-ietf-avtcore-avp-codecs-02
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 08:06:33 -0000
Document: draft-ietf-avtcore-avp-codecs-02 Title: RTP/AVP codecs Reviewer: Bert Greevenbosch Review Date: 13 June 2013 IETF Last Call Date: [include if known] IESG Telechat Date: [include if known] Summary: No major issues, only editorials. Major Issues: none Minor Issues: (1) "Some environments REQUIRE support for PCMU.". The key word "REQUIRE" is not defined in RFC 2119. RFC 2119 defines "REQUIRED", which IMHO should be used differently. Maybe a better phrasing would be: "Some environments MAY require support for PCMU.". Nits: (2) Section 3 contains the original text from RFC 3551. However, this is a bit confusing when reading it the first time; when you miss that it is the original text from RFC 3551, it seems inconsistent with the introduction. Maybe it is good to split section 3 into three sections: "3.1 original text from RFC 3551" "3.2 updates" "3.3 resulting text" The header of section 3 could be "Updates to RFC 3551 section 6". Introductory text could be "Section 6 of RFC 3551 is hereby updated as set forth below." Alternatively one could put all into a single section 3 (no subsections). Goal is that it should be clearer what is the original text, what is the proposed change and what is the result.
- [apps-discuss] Applications Area Directorate Revi… Bert Greevenbosch