Subject: [AVTCORE] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-mix-18: (with COMMENT)

From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 01:50:45 -0700

Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-mix-18: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-mix/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi,

Thanks for this document.  This document is quite a long way from my core
knowledge base, so I'm not sure whether there is much that I can really add. 
It doesn't seem to have any obvious manageability concerns.

I was initially surprised by the capability exchange mechanism
(offer/exchange), in that if both offeror and receiver could support multiple
options then it is always the the receiver that decides which to use (by only
selecting one).  I think that this is probably fine.  I don't know which
parties generally initiate these exchanges, and whether there is ever a case
where both offeror and receiver support multiple options where it would be
beneficial for the offeror to make the final decision as to which should be
used (e.g., when coordinating between more than two devices).

As one minor nit, I would have preferred to see section 1.2, "Selected solution
and considered alternatives" as an appendix.  I wasn't convinced that it is
core to understanding this document, but I'm happy to leave it to the authors
discretion as to whether they should move it, or leave it where it is.

Thanks,
Rob

---

From: Gunnar Hellström <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2021 21:57:49 +0200

Robert,

Thanks for your review, please see answers inline.

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-mix/
[GH] Since we do not currently have another multiparty method, it is 
hard to say if it would be suitable to answer that both are supported. 
It is a risk that allowing both simultaneously would cause confusion. 
Therefore I prefer to keep it as it is.
> discretion as to whether they should move it, or leave it where it is.

[GH] You have a point in that view. However, another reviewer reported 
that it was very goog to find this information up-front. So, with some 
hesitation, I select to let the alternatives section stay where it is.

Thanks,

Gunnar

-- 
Gunnar Hellström
GHAccess
[email-masked]