Re: [Fecframe] comments on draft-ietf-fecframe-dvb-al-fec-02.txt

[Stephan Wenger <stewe at stewe.org>]

Hi,

This may be a bit out of context, and if so, I apologize.

Am I right that this I-D attempts to circumscribe an existing ETSI spec in
IETF lingo?  What's the purpose of this exercise?

Unrelated to the technical aspects here, it seems odd to me that an IETF
informational RFC-to-be would attempt to use any RFC 2119 normative language
to describe what is already specified elsewhere (using non-RFC2119 lingo).
First, arguably, an informational RFC should not use RFC2119 language at
all---as it is informational.  Second, there may be subtle differences
between the interpretation of the normative languages of the two
organization which could be lost in the "translation" process.  That, in
turn, could lead to incompatible implementations stemming from the different
specs.  

On a more general note, the abstract should be more concise, and (especially
in cases like this) focus on the obvious question of the purpose of the
document, rather than the technical details.

Regards,
Stephan



On 8/31/09 3:15 AM, "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen at cisco.com> wrote:

>>> Page 6, in SSRC item: " It is RECOMMENDED that the DVB AL-FEC
>>> protocol uses this mechanism for explicit SSRC signaling"
>>> Doe it make sense to use the keyword "RECOMMEDED"
>>> within the scope of IETF to guide the way of using SSRC for AL-FEC
>> protocol
>>> specified in DVB?
>> 
>> Using a deterministic SSRC=0 value is a special case, and is only acceptable
>> by RTP if it is signaled explicitly.
>> 
>> Do you think we should say "MUST" or "SHOULD"?
>> 
>> [zou] It seems that I lead to a misunderstanding. Sorry. I'm asking whether
>> it makes sense to stipulate in IETF the manner of a DVB standard by using
>> the IETF keywords "RECOMMENDED" or "MUST" whatever. Maybe a lowercase form
>> would be more proper.
> 
> That keyword applies to the ones who will use an IETF spec (interleaved-fec
> draft) to implement the al-fec protocol. So, I believe the use of the
> keyword(s) is appropriate.
> 
> -acbegen
> _______________________________________________
> Fecframe mailing list
> Fecframe at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe