I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Document: draft-ietf-avt-hc-over-mpls-protocol-08
Reviewer: Spencer Dawkins
Review Date: 2007-03-01
IETF LC End Date: 2007-02-07
IESG Telechat date: 2007-03-08
Summary: This document is ready for publication as Proposed Standard.
Just to follow up - 08 addressed all but one of my Last Call concerns from
07, and Jerry provided text (below) that addressed the last concern.
If you prefer I could replace the phrasing "These sub-options do not
occur together" with the following text: "These sub-options MUST NOT
occur together, if they do (e.g., if misconfigured) a decompressor MUST
reject this option and send an explicit error message to the compressor
[RFC3544]."
Thanks!
Spencer
Hi, Cullen,
Jerry's proposed text is exactly what I was thinking of (but did not have
the background to suggest, of course). If you agree, I think it's the
right thing to do.
Thanks,
Spencer
From: "ASH, GERALD R (JERRY), ATTLABS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Spencer Dawkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Cullen Jennings"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "ASH, GERALD R (JERRY), ATTLABS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Brian E Carpenter"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Andrew G. Malis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 5:44 PM
Subject: RE: Gen-ART Last Call Review of
draft-ietf-avt-hc-over-mpls-protocol-07
Spencer, Cullen,
Please see below.
-----Original Message-----
From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 4:23 PM
To: Cullen Jennings
Cc: ASH, GERALD R (JERRY), ATTLABS; Brian E Carpenter
Subject: Re: Gen-ART Last Call Review of
draft-ietf-avt-hc-over-mpls-protocol-07
> Hi Spencer - just wondering if the 08 version resolved your
concerns.
Hi, Cullen,
I'm pretty much happy with 08, with one remaining nagging
feeling. I'm
wondering if the text in "4.2.3 Enhanced RTP-Compression Suboption
[RFC3544]" seems tight enough to you and Brian.
For ease of reference, that text is as follows:
To use the enhanced RTP HC defined in [RFC3545], a
new sub-option 2 is added. Sub-option 2 is negotiated instead of,
not in addition to, sub-option 1. This suboption MUST be included
for ECRTP PWs (0x001B) and MUST NOT be included for other PW types.
I flagged this as part of my incessant whining about "but
what happens if it
IS NOT (or IS) included?", and Jerry provided this paragraph:
Note that sub-option 1 refers to the RTP-Compression Sub-option, as
specified in Section 4.2.2, and sub-option 2 refers to the Enhanced
RTP-Compression Sub-option, as specified in Section 4.2.3. These
sub-options do not occur together.
If this is tight enough for you guys, I'm OK. I was hoping
for something
like what Jerry added in 4.2.1:
A decompressor
MUST reject this option (if misconfigured) for ROHC PW types and
send an explicit error message to the compressor [RFC3544].
If you prefer I could replace the phrasing "These sub-options do not
occur together" with the following text: "These sub-options MUST NOT
occur together, if they do (e.g., if misconfigured) a decompressor MUST
reject this option and send an explicit error message to the compressor
[RFC3544]."
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
