Hi Sharon,
On 18 Jul 2006, at 18:01, Sharon Chisholm wrote:
Adding these clarifications to the document itself would be
helpful. Of
particular concern would be the ambiguities identified in 4, 6, 10,
11,
12, 13, 14. You may not think they identify a technical problem
because
you can clarify them here, but if two different implementations come
away with two different interpretations of the draft/RFC then you
won't
achieve interoperability and then that is a technical problem.
Sure -- if we can make clarifications that's always valuable,
provided it doesn't cause confusion by breaking consistency with
other RTP Payload Format RFCs.
For 15 I would suggest perhaps adding it in the list of terms. DTX is
talked about much earlier in the document then where it is introduced.
Okay.
I guess these can be fixed with a revision after the IESG telechat?
Colin
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
