Re: [AVT] Updated Internet Drafts for "audio/mpa-robust" Draft Standard

[Colin Perkins <csp at csperkins.org>]

Ross,

On 6 Oct 2004, at 21:38, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> FYI, I have made available two updated Internet Drafts related to the 
> "audio/mpa-robust" RTP payload format:
> 	draft-ietf-avt-rfc3119bis-03.txt
> 	draft-finlayson-avt-mpa-robust-interoperability-01.txt
>
> These versions were updated to use the proper new IETF 'boilerplate'; 
> there were no other changes.
>
> Can this now be progressed to Draft Standard?

Apologies for the slow response. I have a few minor comments after 
reviewing the payload format draft:

 - Section 4.4 notes that static payload type 14 was defined for MPEG 
audio
   but MUST NOT be used for this new format (which uses a dynamic 
payload
   type). That's fine, but the wording is not sufficient now we have 
many
   RTP profiles. Suggest changing it to:

      Payload Type: The assignment of an RTP payload type for this
         payload format is outside the scope of this document, and will
         not be specified here. It is expected that the RTP profile for
         a particular class of applications will assign a payload type
         for this encoding, or if that is not done then a payload type
         in the dynamic range SHALL be chosen. Note that the "RTP/AVP"
         profile [6] defines static payload type 14 for MPEG audio [2];
         that payload type MUST NOT be used for the format defined in
         this memo.

   or some similar wording, making it clear that payload type 14 is 
defined
   only in the context of RTP/AVP.

 - Last paragraph of section 5, please remove the * around *only* and
   *unless*.

 - The draft is missing an IANA Considerations section. The easiest
   fix would be to rename section 8 to "IANA Considerations" and add
   the text "The media type registration for audio/mpa-robust is to
   be updated as described below." to the start of the section.

 - The references need to be updated to match RFC 3550 and 3551.

 - Please check that the draft conforms to the formatting guidelines and
   passes the idnits tool without any nits being detected:

      idnits 1.49 (16 Nov 2004)

      draft-ietf-avt-rfc3119bis-03.txt:

        The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section
        Checking conformance with RFC 3667/3668 boilerplate...
        the boilerplate looks good.
        The document is more than 15 pages and seems to lack a Table of
        Contents
        There are 43 instances of too long lines in the document,
        -- the longest one being 1 character in excess of 72.

These should be simple to fix, and otherwise this looks to be fine.
Colin


_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt