Re: [AVT] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-avt-avpf-ccm-05.txt

[Colin Perkins <csp at csperkins.org>]

On 14 May 2007, at 20:50, Internet-Drafts at ietf.org wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Audio/Video Transport Working  
> Group of the IETF.
>
> 	Title		: Codec Control Messages in the RTP Audio-Visual Profile  
> with Feedback (AVPF)
> 	Author(s)	: S. Wenger, et al.
> 	Filename	: draft-ietf-avt-avpf-ccm-05.txt
> 	Pages		: 66
> 	Date		: 2007-5-14
> 	
> This document specifies a few extensions to the messages defined in
>    the Audio-Visual Profile with Feedback (AVPF).  They are helpful
>    primarily in conversational multimedia scenarios where centralized
>    multipoint functionalities are in use.  However some are also  
> usable
>    in smaller multicast environments and point-to-point calls.  The
>    extensions discussed are messages related to the ITU-T H.271 Video
>    Back Channel, Full Intra Request, Temporary Maximum Media Stream  
> Bit
>    Rate and Temporal Spatial Trade-off.
>
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-avpf-ccm-05.txt

Some minor comments on this (sorry Magnus - I realise you just  
submitted -06!)

Section 1.1 (last paragraph): suggest changing "Finally, all  
messages..." to "Finally, and most importantly, all messages..."

Section 3 is specified as being Informative, but is referenced in a  
normative manner from Section 4 (for the description of the TMMBR  
algorithm). Should maybe remove "(Informative)" from the title of  
Section 3?

Section 4.1: shouldn't the reference to RFC 4587 be to the old H.261  
format, since it's talking about the old back-channel messages (which  
were removed in the update)? (also in section 4.3.1.1 half way down  
page 46)

Section 4.1 (bottom of page 34): maybe note that use for other  
purposes is inappropriate?

Section 4.3.4.2: Table 2 missing > sign in -06 draft (also, -06 has  
some weird formatting problems, with lines split oddly on section  
cross-references?)

References: [Topologies] should be informative? idnits complains

Otherwise looks good.

Cheers,
Colin

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