[AVT] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-wing-avt-rtp-noop-02.txt

[Colin Perkins <csp at csperkins.org>]

On 9 May 2005, at 20:52, Internet-Drafts at ietf.org wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
> directories.
>
> 	Title		: A No-op payload format for the Realtime Transport Protocol
> 	Author(s)	: F. Andreasen, et al.
> 	Filename	: draft-wing-avt-rtp-noop-02.txt
> 	Pages		: 12
> 	Date		: 2005-5-9
> 	
> This document defines an no-op payload format for the Real-time
>    Transport Protocol (RTP), and a mechanism to request an immediate
>    RTCP report.  This can be used to verify RTP connectivity and to 
> keep
>    Network Address Translator (NAT) bindings and Firewall pinholes 
> open.
>
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wing-avt-rtp-noop-02.txt

I have a few comments on this draft:

Would it be possible to rename "Request Immediate RTCP" to "Request 
Early RTCP" throughout? This would clarify that the RTP/AVPF timing 
rules MUST be followed, and that applications cannot send the feedback 
immediately. This would also reduce concerns about congestion control.

Similarly, it would help if bullet point 1 in section 2.6 stated 
clearly that "If the RTP/AVPF profile is not used the receiver MUST NOT 
send immediate feedback".

Can you please change the title to use "RTP" rather than "Realtime 
Transport Protocol" for consistency with other drafts, and to make it 
easier to search for RTP-related RFCs. We have permission from the RFC 
Editor and IESG to use the acronym in draft titles.

The definition of RFC 2119 key words should be placed at the end of the 
introduction, rather than being a separate section before the table of 
contents.

Section 2.6 (second paragraph) has a typo ("Se""nd Immediate RTCP 
Report").

Section 3 has incorrectly formatted SDP examples (the "s=" lines).

Colin


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