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

[Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund at ericsson.com>]

Colin Perkins skrev:
> 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..."

Good suggestion.

> 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?

Yes, I will simply remove it.

> 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)

Yes, it should. I think it is a result of not thinking enough when using 
ID-nits and the implication of updating the reference.

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

Yes, but in fact I think we can write something like the below which 
also covers the previous bullet list with rationales.

"Messages that are not fulfilling the above listed rationales are not 
appropriate to be defined to use with RTCP and in the Codec Control 
Framework defined in this document."

> 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?)

Not in the version I download from the IETF repository or the version I 
have locally on my disk.

Yes, I have had some problem with using Word. It inserts a number of 
spurious spaces or tabs before cross references.

> References: [Topologies] should be informative? idnits complains

Fixed.

Please comment on the suggested text for section 4.1.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM/M
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
Torshamsgatan 23           | Fax   +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund at ericsson.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------

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