Subject: [AVT] comments on draft-schmidt-avt-rfc3016bis-01

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 20:09:49 +0300

Hi,

I reviewed the draft and have some comments.

It looks to me that the draft has all the text from RFC 3016 and I suggest
that it would obsolete RFC 3016 and not update it.

Others

1.       We are using media subtype for RTP payload instead of MIME type,
this need to be updated in the whole draft

2.       You are using the term VOP starting in section 1.1, please define
what is this abbreviation of.

3.       In section 1.2 you discuss scalable stream. In the second line of
the 4 paragraph you are referring to RTP packets but from the rest of the
paragraph it looks like you meant RTP streams (with different PT)

4.       For the scalable audio and video you are using the PT values to
define the dependency. I assume that you need it for backward compatibility
but why not also suggest using the SDP decoding dependency draft.

5.       In section 3 you mention RFC 4629 and 4628. Please add references.

6.       The media subtype registration should be updated to be inline with
RFC485

7.       For mpeg4 -video you mention in Applications which use this media
type IM and email yet there is no file format specified or referenced here.

8.       To the SDP usage add offer/answer consideration including also the
negotiation for profile-level, what is considered an interoperability mode,
do both sides need to have the same profile and level or the offer is
rejected and so on.

9.       The security section can you the security consideration from
draft-ieft-avt-srtp-not-mandatory

10.   The IANA consideration should say that it updates the media type
registration from 3016 and point at the media subtype definition sections in
the current draft.

Regards

Roni Even