Subject: [MMUSIC] WGLC: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-source-attributes-00.txt

From: Joerg Ott <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 07:19:19 -0800

All,

this is to issue WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-source-attributes-00.txt
The document has received repeated discussions both on the list and
during our meetings.  While this is a -00 draft, several individual
submissions have preceeded it and it also seems to be ready to go.
The target status is proposed standard.

The two-week working gourp last call will end on 20 December.  Please
review the draft again and please direct comments to the MMUSIC mailing
list and the authors.

Joerg

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

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:57:28 +0000

On 5 Dec 2007, at 15:19, Joerg Ott wrote:
> This is to issue WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-source- 
> attributes-00.txt

I have read this draft, and believe it is generally ready for  
publication as a proposed standard. I did, however, notice some minor  
issues which it would be good to fix:

Section 1 (2nd paragraph): Typo "Syncronization"

Section 1 (5th paragraph): RFCs that mention discussion in working  
groups tend not to age well. I suggest that this paragraph be  
significantly cut-down, leaving only the mention that layered video  
codec (e.g. SVC) are a possible use case for this attribute.

Section 4.1: I assume that only one attribute can be included in each  
a=ssrc: line? It would be good to state this explicitly, and note  
that multiple lines MUST be included if there is a need to specify  
multiple attributes per SSRC.

Section 4.2: I think it needs to be made clear here that the draft  
defines a separate IANA registry for source-level grouping semantics,  
that is initially populated with a subset of values defined for media- 
level grouping semantics.

Section 5 (6th paragraph): Should reference section 6.3.1 of RFC 3550  
for the definition of Td.

Section 7: If the example in Figure 8 is not specified or encouraged,  
then it shouldn't be included.

Section 10: Should "=/" be used for incremental alternatives in ABNF,  
rather than "/="?

Section 12.1 (1st paragraph): typo "reistered"

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