Hi [email protected], Thanks a lot for the detailed review comments.
I'll discuss with Muthu (Co-author) and then incorporate your comments in the next revision. Thanks Partha > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 7:28 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: review of draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729-04.txt > > 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>. > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > you may receive. > > Document: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729-04.txt > Reviewer: Francis Dupont > Review Date: 20131120 > IETF LC End Date: 20131127 > IESG Telechat date: unknown > > Summary: Ready > > Major issues: None > > Minor issues: None > > Nits/editorial comments: > - Abstract page 1: usually the Abstract should not reference an RFC > by its number. IMHO here it is the exception: the I-D will be > included into the next revision of the RFC. > > - I don't like the annexa/annexb name (nor my spell checker) but > they are the names used by the RFC... > > - ToC page 2 and 7 page 7: Acknowledgement -> Acknowledgment > > - 1 page 3 (wording suggestion): implied if -> implied when > > - 1 page 3: BTW IMHO "use or preferred" should be interpreted > as preferred in the offer and use in the answer so the RFC is > correct. But as you mentioned some implementations didn't follow > the interpretation so I understand why a clarification new > document (this I-D) is needed. And of course I fully agree with > 3.1 and 3.2. > > - 7 page 7: Note I checked the spelling of "Harprit S. Chhatwal > (InnoMedia)" (uncommon for our eyes but correct). > > Regards > > [email protected] _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
