Subject: [clue] Comments on draft-ietf-clue-rtp-mapping-04

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 15:14:47 +1100

Hello Roni, all,

Here are some comments on draft-ietf-clue-rtp-mapping-04:

General: The draft still reads like it is an individual proposal wanting 
to be adopted. I guess as it's now a working group document it should be 
written from a more normative point of view.

General: The other CLUE document capitalise the use of "CLUE", i.e. not 
clue.

Clause 4.4 para 3: "However, the disadvantage in using a mid in the 
stream <is> that it..."

Clause 4.4 para 4: "In this case, <it> may require up to an additional 
12 bytes in the RTP header..."

Clause 4.4 para 4: Whilst its true there's significant bandwidth 
increase for very low bandwidth audio codecs are these really candidates 
to be used for Telepresence/CLUE which would imply a higher quality codec.

Clause 5: The section talks about "mid". Is this the "mid" used in the 
CLUE group or? E.g. a CLUE controlled m-line may also have a mid used 
for BUNDLE.

Clause 6.1 If this is planning on using 
draft-westerlund-avtext-sdes-hdr-ext-03 then we should probably add a 
reference to it here.

Clause 6.2 Header figure: The separator "|" for ID seems to be in the 
wrong place. It should be between the 7 and 8 not under 9. There's a 
similar issue for the next separator. Also "Len-1" I think can simply be 
"Length". The second instance of "CaptureId" could be deleted. Also 
should we add how the CaptureID (IDRef) is encoded, i.e. UTF-8 text?

Regards, Christian