Subject: Re: [AVT] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-avt-smpte-rtp-00.txt

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 13:03:35 +0100

On 16 Aug 2005, at 20:50, [email-masked] wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts  
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Audio/Video Transport Working  
> Group of the IETF.
>
>     Title        : Associating SMPTE time-codes with RTP streams
>     Author(s)    : D. Singer
>     Filename    : draft-ietf-avt-smpte-rtp-00.txt
>     Pages        : 8
>     Date        : 2005-8-16
>
>    This document describes a mechanism for associating SMPTE time- 
> codes
>    with media streams, in a way that is independent of the RTP payload
>    format of the media stream itself.
>
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-smpte-rtp-00.txt

This seems to be a good draft. I have a few minor comments:

  - It looks like SDP signalling will be needed. This should be  
defined in
    the draft, and referenced from IANA considerations.

  - The draft talks about RTCP APP packets. It would be better to  
define a
    new RTCP packet type; the overhead is lower and we have plenty of  
spare
    RTCP packet type numbers.

  - Can the IETF define an org.smpte RTP header extension? It would seem
    that we'd need SMPTE to do that, with the IETF only being able to
    define extensions in org.ietf (or possible arpa.*)?

The idnits tools gives the following warnings:

   Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:
   * The document seems to lack an Abstract section.
   * The document seems to lack separate sections for
     Informative/Normative References.
     Checking conformance with RFC 3978/3979 boilerplate...
   * The document claims conformance with section 10 of RFC 2026, but
     uses some RFC 3978/3979 boilerplate.  As RFC 3978/3979 replaces  
section
     10 of RFC 2026, you should not claim conformance with it if you  
have
     changed to using RFC 3978/3979 boilerplate.
   * The document seems to lack an RFC 3978 Section 5.5 Disclaimer --
     however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate
     error?

   Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id- 
guidelines.txt:
   * The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about
     Internet-Drafts being working documents -- however, there's a  
paragraph
     with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error?
   * The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about 6
     months document validity -- however, there's a paragraph with a  
matching
     beginning. Boilerplate error?
   * The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the
     list of current Internet-Drafts -- however, there's a paragraph  
with a
     matching beginning. Boilerplate error?
   * The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the
     list of Shadow Directories.
   - It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0
     form feeds but 8 pages

Please can you fix these, so the draft has the current boilerplate.

Colin

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