[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [AVT] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-avt-rtp-atrac-family-08.txt

On 6 Jun 2007, at 09:45, Mitsuyuki Hatanaka wrote:
We have submitted our revised internet draft as "draft-ietf-avt-rtp- atracx-family-08.txt".
You will be able to get it from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.

In this draft we modified the draft based on the issue that Mr.Perkins pointed out
(refer to: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/avt/current/ msg06933.html).
In addition, we changed some items regarding on SDP usage and definition.

Thanks for submitting this update; it looks to have addressed most of the issues with the previous draft. There are, however, a number of problems remaining:

- Figures 4, 5, and 6 don't seem to be referenced from the text. You need to explicitly refer to the figure, by number, in the introduction to the appropriate section.

- Section 5.2: it's not appropriate for a payload format to prohibit the use of RTP padding or header extensions. The draft should indicate that padding is support according to RFC 3550, and header extensions can be used according to the rules defined by the relevant RTP profile (e.g. RFC 3551).

- Section 5.2: the interpretation of the marker bit needs to be specified. The usual rules for video are that the market bit is set to one of the last packet of a frame, and set to zero in all other packets.

In addition, the automated checker (http://tools.ietf.org/tools/ idnits/) finds a number of problems with the draft. We cannot submit drafts to the IESG for publication unless they pass the checker, so please correct these issues also.
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/avt/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-atrac-family/draft- ietf-avt-rtp-atrac-family-08.nits.txt

Regards,
--
Colin Perkins
http://csperkins.org/



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