Subject: Re: [AVT] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-avt-rtp-atrac-family-11.txt

From: actech <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:57:24 +0900

Dear Mr.Perkins,

Thank you very much for your comments and advice on our 11th draft.

>> We used the terminology of "frame" for "unit of audio encoding".  
>> But we agree that the meaning of "packet" and "frame" are confused  
>> and ambigious in the section, so we changed the description here in  
>> order to clarify the meaning and the usage of "frame" and "packet".
>>     
>
> This is much better now, except for the Continuous Flag. In this case  
> it is not the packets that are fragmented, but the frame which is  
> fragmented across a series of packets. 

OK, we would like to change the description of Continuous Flag, as follows.

---
Continuous Flag (C) : 1bit

The packet which corresponds to the last part of the audio frame data
in a fragmentaion, SHALL have this bit to 0, otherwise set to 1.
---

> Finally, reference 12 probably needs to be a normative reference now,  
> since it's required to signal the layered coding.  

Reference 12 (draft-chierl-mmusic-layered-codec-04.txt) is not RFC but the
internet draft. Is it OK to put the internet draft as normative 
reference, or
do we need to put some remarks in our draft?

Regarding on other issue, we will change the draft accoding to your 
comment,
and submit the next version of the draft shortly.

Best Regards,

-------------------
Mitsuyuki Hatanaka
Jun Matsumoto

Sony Corporation

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

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:33:14 +0000

On 11 Jan 2008, at 11:57, actech wrote:
>>> But we agree that the meaning of "packet" and "frame" are  
>>> confused  and ambigious in the section, so we changed the  
>>> description here in  order to clarify the meaning and the usage  
>>> of "frame" and "packet".
>>>
>>
>> This is much better now, except for the Continuous Flag. In this  
>> case  it is not the packets that are fragmented, but the frame  
>> which is  fragmented across a series of packets.
>

That looks fine.

>> Finally, reference 12 probably needs to be a normative reference  
>> now,  since it's required to signal the layered coding.
>
> reference, or do we need to put some remarks in our draft?

It is okay to put an internet-draft as a normative reference.

Regards,
-- 
Colin Perkins
http://csperkins.org/