-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 11/21/2013 06:55 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: > Ok. But I agree with Wassim that it needs breaking up. I'd just do s/but > unfortunately/. Unfortunately/
OK, I added this to the list of edit for the next version (this week-end). > > Jari > > On Nov 21, 2013, at 10:51 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On 11/21/2013 04:51 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: >>>> Many thanks for this review, Wassim! I have balloted a no-obj >>>> position for this draft for today's IESG telechat. Marc: I assume you >>>> have the token on ensuring a resolution for the points is reached >>>> somehow. > > Yes, although I am not sure how to fix the first point below. I would > suggest to let the RFC editor decide if the sentence really need > improvement. > >>>> >>>> Jari >>>> >>>> On Nov 21, 2013, at 7:50 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Wassim, >>>> >>>> Thanks for the review. Please see my answers below. >>>> >>>> On 11/20/2013 03:50 PM, Wassim Haddad wrote: >>>>>>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For >>>>>>> background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at >>>>>>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Document: draft-ietf-avtext-multiple-clock-rates-10 Reviewer: >>>>>>> Wassim Haddad Review Date: 20 Nov 2013 IETF LC End Date: 22 Oct >>>>>>> 2013 IETF Telechat Date: 21 Nov 2013 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as >>>>>>> proposed standard >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Major Issues: None >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Minor Issues: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -> In the introduction section, I suggest re-wording the >>>>>>> following (long and not so clear) sentence: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Schulzrinne, et al. [RFC3550] lists using multiple clock rates >>>>>>> as one of the reasons to not use different payloads on the same >>>>>>> SSRC but unfortunately this advice has not always been followed >>>>>>> and some RTP implementations change the payload in the same >>>>>>> SSRC even if the different payloads use different clock >>>>>>> rates". >>>> >>>> Do you have a suggestion to make this sentence better? >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -> Please consider adding the following to the terminology >>>>>>> section: - SSRC, - Lip, - SR >>>> >>>> SSRC and SR (and RR) are already scheduled for expansion in the next >>>> version but I do not think they require an entry in the terminology >>>> section, as they are already defined in RFC 3550. On the other hand >>>> I an not sure why you want a definition for "Lip" as it is used in >>>> the text in its dictionary sense (RFC 3550 does not define lip >>>> either). >>>> > > > - -- Marc Petit-Huguenin Email: [email protected] Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJSjhEwAAoJECnERZXWan7ETwkP/3boL2XPXp5RqfjNmBqAFLan 7s6680nrhlgrZiYfgkiYi1HA8l9XL9XrkVf/2ZJH2rckcGukf63Bq8bMYakzEiqo 4eRz9sPvzbK7TFaqFfPlQcQIk+oFCPUl5adN1R+eWVr9TZeLaZdrVE33X5blgtPQ VSanSRd5cbg2jgXy30XC4kp1kYm50mU2B7OmFbI8sCsxVzhxtgJk5ZfCHPFsMjfB JlzBBFMOsF/I4y2EMZSC6TbWp4W/89D2ESE2JasDNhOyPFI+j7EVixFEkmIbj6Ox VRYs80DfaGt2/xLEtGlBNoU9PyBh7E8sRnKnN/qrFvPUB2ykMX74G3JLzZKUzMQR Kwm0gi/e1kwGbWZ/Xq42DIzvJXq6inUyQOv3DCWB+VDSTZY9jpYy7DUNt6ZMVk/y YWPxGhOq0sxsKTNQZTJ2OlG6aegWcMrLhPGqG4hbiEN4P5rQy2tS49LwJ6XQj/5d WjfevB6FOpFwNKCP9+bMKK4ktreSt7aA6UjLF/nn97bciX/yt7iaGLjTQHGzSQ6Q h7JJNrmcx/qGpTJZxhPJ69Ov+GaGt14diG+u7CnpciLfWQMKM/Mn388+rC8oL1iR zKqqPFNMS40R0vCX18J2DiCYFtyp/dHXDF+kngKrVT7ZqG2UZsyvkNUVVowY8vVv WzpOJ685znHSRxSsd2na =7Mvw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
