Subject: [AVT] Review comments for draft-ietf-avt-rfc3047bis-02.doc

From: "Tom-PT Taylor" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 14:21:24 -0500

Summary: I think this document needs a little tidying up before it is 
ready for WG Last Call. My major concern is the amount of codec 
description mixed into the RTP section. I feel that could all be 
gathered into the excellent but somewhat abbreviated introduction, so 
that the RTP section can concentrate on packetization issues. If you 
want, I can give specific suggestions for new text.

Aside from this general concern, here are some minor issues:

1) The abbreviation MIME appears in a number of places in the document. 
That has to go, since we just register media types for RTP these days. 
In sections 4.1.1 and 5 you'll have to add "media" in front of "subtype" 
when "MIME" is taken away. Elsewhere you can just delete "MIME".

2) In section 3.4, first para, how does the receiver know the expected 
number of octets per frame? I assume it is derived from the bitrate 
parameter. You might mention that.

3) In section 4.1.1, optional parameters: I assume ptime and maxptime 
SHOULD be a multiple of 20 ms, since that is the frame size?

4) Also in section 4.1.1, published specification, you might want to add 
[this RFC] or a note to the RFC Editor after "RFC yyy".

5) In section 7 I suppose you can add mention that you are updating the 
media type registration to conform to RFC 4288.

6) Is there anything you need to write about receiver behaviour, 
particularly if confronted with payload types at different sampling 
rates in the same stream?

I have some minor editing notes I will send directly to the authors.

Note to Chairs: we have to take this registration to the media types list.

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