|
Hi, I reviewed the draft and have some comments. It looks to me that the draft has all the text from RFC 3016
and I suggest that it would obsolete RFC 3016 and not update it. Others 1.
We are using media subtype for RTP
payload instead of MIME type, this need to be updated in the whole draft 2.
You are using the term VOP
starting in section 1.1, please define what is this abbreviation of. 3.
In section 1.2 you discuss scalable
stream. In the second line of the 4 paragraph you are referring to RTP packets
but from the rest of the paragraph it looks like you meant RTP streams (with different
PT) 4.
For the scalable audio and video
you are using the PT values to define the dependency. I assume that you need it
for backward compatibility but why not also suggest using the SDP decoding dependency
draft. 5.
In section 3 you mention RFC 4629
and 4628. Please add references. 6.
The media subtype registration
should be updated to be inline with RFC485 7.
For mpeg4 –video you mention
in Applications which use this media type IM and email yet there is no file format
specified or referenced here. 8.
To the SDP usage add offer/answer
consideration including also the negotiation for profile-level, what is
considered an interoperability mode, do both sides need to have the same
profile and level or the offer is rejected and so on. 9.
The security section can you the
security consideration from draft-ieft-avt-srtp-not-mandatory 10.
The IANA consideration should say
that it updates the media type registration from 3016 and point at the media
subtype definition sections in the current draft. Regards Roni Even |