Subject: Re: [avtext] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-avtext-rid-08: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2016 16:50:12 -0500

Hi Mirja,

Please see comments inline:

Thanks!

Ben.

On 31 Aug 2016, at 7:59, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:

> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-avtext-rid-08: No Objection
>
>
> There is one use of normative language but no rfc2119 boilerplate:
>
> "RtpStreamId and RepairedStreamId MUST contain only alphanumeric
> characters."

I _think_ that is intended to indicate that is already an existing 
requirement on SDES items. But if that's the case, it probably needs to 
be attributed as a quote, or drop capital letters. (Authors, please 
confirm or deny.)

>
> I would actually recommend to add more normative language (and the
> boilerplate), e.g.:
>
> " To be clear: the value carried in a RepairedRtpStreamId MUST
>    match the RtpStreamId value from another RTP stream in the same
>    session.  For example, if a source RTP stream is identified by
>    RtpStreamId "A", then any redundancy RTP stream that repairs that
>    source RTP stream will contain a RepairedRtpStreamId of "A" (if 
> this
>    mechanism is being used to perform such correlation).  These
>    redundant RTP streams MAY also contain their own unique 
> RtpStreamId."

Again, I'd like the authors to confirm, but I think the (currently lower 
case) "may" is a statement of fact, rather than permission.

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 17:02:24 -0500

On 9/1/16 16:50, Ben Campbell wrote:
> I /think/ that is intended to indicate that is already an existing 
> requirement on SDES items. But if that's the case, it probably needs 
> to be attributed as a quote, or drop capital letters. (Authors, please 
> confirm or deny.)
>

No, it's a further restriction. SDES items can contain UTF-8. In Berlin, 
we decided that we wanted to limit these to alphanumeric, to match the 
SDP restrictions.

>     source RTP stream will contain a RepairedRtpStreamId of "A" (if this
>     redundant RTP streams MAY also contain their own unique RtpStreamId." 
>
> Again, I'd like the authors to confirm, but I think the (currently 
> lower case) "may" is a statement of fact, rather than permission.
>

This is true.

The omission of RFC 2119 language was not entirely unintentional. My 
understanding is that using 2119 is optional, and largely at the 
authors' discretion. At some point, it became clear that this document 
was easier to read without 2119 terms. The inclusion of "MUST" in this 
very recent edit (like I said, it came out of Berlin) was in error. It 
should be lowercase.

Unless we're going to get into an argument over editorial control.

/a

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 21:36:21 -0500

> Unless we're going to get into an argument over editorial control.

I apologize. This came out as unnecessarily grumpy. What I meant is that 
I believe the behavior described by the document is well-specified 
without the use of RFC 2119 language, and that the prose flows better 
without it. It is my preference not to re-work the phrasing to 
incorporate capitalized terms.

/a