[AVTCORE] AD Review: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw-07

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Tue, 23 October 2012 20:15 UTC

Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6324D21F865E for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 13:15:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vKDTs1ghh2qn for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 13:15:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82E2C21F8646 for <avt@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 13:15:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unnumerable.local (pool-173-57-93-208.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [173.57.93.208]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q9NKFGOO039066 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 23 Oct 2012 15:15:16 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <5086FAD4.8070301@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 15:15:16 -0500
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw@tools.ietf.org, avt@ietf.org, avtcore-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 173.57.93.208 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Subject: [AVTCORE] AD Review: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw-07
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/avt>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 20:15:27 -0000

Summary: The document should be revised before IETF LC.

Primary Concern:

- This document needs to point to RFC6562, at least in the security 
considerations section and
possibly in section 11. I think the reference needs to be normative.

Minor Concerns and Nits:

- Section 8 refers backto a "mapping" in Section 4, but it's not clear 
that there's a mapping there.
I suggest adding a note that ToC values are taken from the value column 
in the table of section 4.

- This sentence from Section 6.1 does not parse well:
      The EVRC-NW interleaved/bundled format defines an encoding capability
      identification flag, which is used to signal the far end of a
      communication session of the instantaneous local EVRC-NW wideband/
      narrowband encoding capability.
   Would this replacement work?
      The EVRC-NW interleaved/bundled format defines an encoding capability
      identification flag, which is used to signal the current local EVRC-NW
      wideband/narrowband encoding capability to the far end of a 
communication
      session.

- in Section 9.1.1:
      When this media type is used in the context of transfer over RTP, the
      RTP payload format specified in Section 4.1 of RFC 3558 [6] SHALL be
      used.  In all other contexts, the file format defined in Section 8
      SHALL be used.  See Section 6 for details for EVRC-NW.
   It needs to be clearer that you are talking about Section 7 and 6 of 
_this_ document.
   I suggest saying "Section 8 of RFCXXXX" and "Section 6 of RFCXXXX" 
and add a note
   to the RFC Editor asking them to replace XXXX with the RFC number of 
this document.

- Section 5 paragraph 1: Suggest s/in a manner consistent with/as 
specified in/