Subject: Re: [AVT] Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-vmr-wb-08.txt

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 13:23:10 +0100

Hi Sassan,

I have reviewed the draft during the WGLC and have found no real issues, 
however a few small nits.

1. Page 3, second paragraph:
   "The VMR-WB file
    Format; i.e., for transport of VMR-WB speech data in storage mode
    applications such as email, will be specified in a separate
    document."

I think this sentence should be rewritten to indicate that such a format 
is specified within 3GPP2 and provide a reference to it.

   "The VMR-WB file
    Format; i.e., for transport of VMR-WB speech data in storage mode
    applications such as email, is specified in [YY]."

2. Page 8, section 5.1, third paragraph:
There is an empty line in the middle of the paragraph.

3. Section 9.1:
There is a fact that you need to be in octet-align mode when doing 
interleaving. However the text now has a double guarding of this. From 
Interleaving def:
                                           The presence of this
                      parameter also implies automatically that
                      octet-aligned operation SHALL be used.

While earlier in the text there is the following statement:

    Furthermore, if the interleaving parameter is present, the
    parameter "octet-align=1" MUST also be present.

Thus the presences of Octet-aligned is required even if the presence of 
"interleaving" is explicit indication that octet-align mode shall be 
used. Are there a reason for requiring the presence of "octet-align" in 
this case?

It isn't necessary to change this, however I would like to know if there 
is a reason or simply ended up this way.

4. Section 9.2:
                                         The parameter "channels", if
       present, should be specified subsequent to the MIME subtype and
       RTP clock rate as an encoding parameter in the "a=rtpmap"
       attribute.

I think this is a bit to unclear, I would suggest that the sentence is 
changed to:

                         The parameter "channels", if
       present, is specified subsequent to the MIME subtype and
       RTP clock rate as an encoding parameter in the "a=rtpmap"
       attribute.

5. The reference list.

I have noticed that reference 7, 8 and 12 is never referenced.

In conclusion I don't see a problem of advancing the specification as 
soon as these nits has been addressed.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
Torshamsgatan 23           | Fax   +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 08:54:37 +0100

Hi,

The WG last call has concluded. No real issues has been raised and we 
will therfore go forward. A few minor nits has been rasied that the 
author will fix in a new version. When that is available we will request 
that this is published as an proposed standard.

Cheers

Magnus

Magnus Westerlund (KI/EAB) wrote:
> This is to announce a working group last call on the Real-Time Transport 
> Protocol (RTP) Payload Format for the Variable-Rate Multimode Wideband 
> (VMR-WB) Audio Codec. Please send any final comments on this draft to 
> the mailing list by 2nd February 2005. If no substantive technical 
> comments are received by that time, we intend to request the IESG to 
> consider this for publication as a proposed standard RFC.
> 
> The draft can be retrived here:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-vmr-wb-08.txt
> 
> Regards
> 
> Magnus Westerlund
> 

-- 

Magnus Westerlund