Subject: [MMUSIC] comments on draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc2326bis-05.txt

From: Geetha Srikantan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 15:09:12 -0800

Hello,

A few comments on the latest draft..

1. Page 18, feature tags: It would be good to mention which ones are
   defined currently and refer to section 18 where they are described
   in detail. The text refers to several instances of feature-tags
   well before they are described..it's confusing for the reader. 

2. Page 26: How does table 8.1 relate to entity tags? Am not sure if
   the table needs to be moved?

3. Page 60, last part of 13.4: "The headers value is valid....media
   supports." It's not clear what this means..might want to reword..

4. RTP-Info for Live sessions - specification to be revisited (as 
   discussed in the offline meeting on 11//11).

5. Hope that we can include some text specifying transport negotiation  
   when we've decided what it is.

geetha

-- 
Geetha Srikantan <[email-masked]>

_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 00:49:54 +0100

Hi Geetha,

>   well before they are described..it's confusing for the reader. 

I can understand this, there are probably a lot of these things that has 
to do with inconsistency of the whole draft.

>   the table needs to be moved?

Table 1, are response codes. They do not relate to entity tags, however 
the table is floating to where it fits, accroding to Latex.

>   supports." It's not clear what this means..might want to reword..

Agree, it need some rewording. Proposal: "The server SHOULD indicate 
what range units it supports, for the given media resource in the SETUP 
response."
Is this clearer?

>   discussed in the offline meeting on 11//11).

Yes.

>   when we've decided what it is.

Yes, please review the proposed text, send comments to the mailing list.

Cheers

Magnus

---

From: Geetha Srikantan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:46:28 -0800

hi Magnus,

I'm sure most of the editorial nits will get addressed in a couple of
revs.

More inline...

> what range units it supports, for the given media resource in the SETUP 
sounds good..

> >   discussed in the offline meeting on 11//11).
great..

> Yes, please review the proposed text, send comments to the mailing list.

I did take a look at the text in the draft..it looks good. I was hoping
there would be some text to specify which transport parameters can be
negotiated. It would be ok to leave out negotiation of some parameters
to an extension document (such as multicast->unicast), however we should
say so explicitly in the text?
If people are in agreement wrt on which parameters to negotiate (see my
note earlier), I can write up some text for this.

geetha