Re: [AVT] Review of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-atrac-family-13

[Tom Taylor <tom.taylor at rogers.com>]

Reading the update you sent me, I realized there is one more issue that has to 
be fixed. The first paragraph of section 5.1 says that the ATRAC header section 
MAY be empty. In first reading I took that to mean that the ATRAC header may be 
absent. Is that really what you meant? If it isn't, I suggest just deleting the 
  text:

    ", of which the second i.e ATRAC Header Section MAY be empty"

from this paragraph. The rules for population of the ATRAC header in section 
5.3.1 are clear enough now to cover all circumstances.

Tom Taylor wrote:
> The issues are small enough that a short review will be sufficient. The only 
> difficult issue is the one Harald raised, about the requirement for a specification.
> 
> actech wrote:
>> Dear Mr.Taylor,
>>
>> Thank you for your review and comments on our draft.
>> We will fix the matter, and revise the draft as "...atrac-family-14"
>> in soon.
>>
>> In that case, do we have to re-submit the draft to AVT group and
>> have reviewed again in the group, or is there any short cuts? :-)
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Jun Matsumoto
...
_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt