Re: [AVT] Working group last call: 2833bis and 2833bisdata

["Tom-PT Taylor" <taylor at nortel.com>]

Thanks for reviewing this again.  My responses below.

Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> Hi
>
> I have reviewed draft-ietf-avt-rfc2833bis-10 and have the following issues:
>
> 1. The abstract contains normative language. Not at all suitable.
[PTT] I will delete the word "MUST" in the second paragraph.
> 2. There is not text in the draft stating its relation to RFC 2833. Is 
> this document obsoleting or updating RFC 2833. The WG last call says 
> updating, but what of RFC 2833 is kept compared to the other documents?
[PTT] The intention is that it obsoletes RFC 2833.  I will replace the 
second and third sentences of the abstract with that statement, and fold 
those sentences into a later part of the abstract.
> 3. Section 2.2.1: What is the definition of measurement point?
[PTT] I will delete the first sentence of 2.2.1, which uses this term, 
and replace "that time" in the second sentence with "the time given by 
the RTP timestamp".
> 4. Section 7. States that these media types are new. Which isn't true 
> they are updated.
OK.  "... updates the descriptions of two RTP payload formats ...".  And 
"documents" rather than "defines" DTMF event codes.
> 5. Section 7.1: I think it should be noted that the registrations are 
> done in accordance with RFC 3555 and draft-freed-media-type-reg-05.txt.
OK
> 6. Section 7.1.1: Events parameter. The default that no value indicates 
> 0-15 should be explicitly stated also here.
OK
> 7. Section 7.1.1: Encoding consideration. Yes, this is correct according 
> to RFC 3555 but not according to draft-freed-media-type-reg-05. As we 
> will update RFC 3555 we should follow freeds document. Thus the encoding 
> considerations should state that the content is "framed" and "binary". 
> See freeds draft for the definitions.
OK
> 8. Section 7.1.1: No restriction on usage. This heading shall state that 
> this media type is only defined for transfer using RTP.
OK
> 9. Section 7.1.2: Apply commend 7 and 8 on this section also.
OK
> 10. Reference 17 is not used. Please fix that either by removing or 
> actually using it.
[PTT] G.729 is part of the example, Figures 3-5.  I'll call out the 
reference when G.729 is first mentioned.
> I would also like to note that also this WG last call forgot to send the 
> draft to ietf-types for review.
>
> Cheers
>
> Magnus
>
> Colin Perkins wrote:
>
> > This is to announce a working group last call on the following two  
> > drafts:
> >
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rfc2833bis-10.txt
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rfc2833bisdata-04.txt
> >
> > Please send any final comments on these two drafts to the mailing  
> > list by 31 October 2005. If no substantive issues are raised by that  
> > time, we intend to submit these to the IESG for publication as  
> > proposed standard RFCs, updating RFC 2833.
> >
> > Colin
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Audio/Video Transport Working Group
> > avt at ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt


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