Hi Francis, We have incorporated your comments in the next revision (will be publishing it shortly).
|- 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. We have removed the reference to RFC4856 from the Abstract. |- I don't like the annexa/annexb name (nor my spell checker) but | they are the names used by the RFC... Right, annexa/annexb name is unavoidable. |- ToC page 2 and 7 page 7: Acknowledgement -> Acknowledgment Addressed. |- 1 page 3 (wording suggestion): implied if -> implied when Addressed. |- 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. You got it right.. |- 7 page 7: Note I checked the spelling of "Harprit S. Chhatwal | (InnoMedia)" (uncommon for our eyes but correct). Thank you for that.. Muthu |-----Original Message----- |From: Parthasarathi R [mailto:par...@parthasarathi.co.in] |Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 9:37 PM |To: francis.dup...@fdupont.fr; gen-art@ietf.org |Cc: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729....@tools.ietf.org |Subject: RE: review of draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729-04.txt | |Hi francis.dup...@fdupont.fr, | |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: francis.dup...@fdupont.fr [mailto:francis.dup...@fdupont.fr] |> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 7:28 PM |> To: gen-art@ietf.org |> Cc: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729....@tools.ietf.org |> 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 |> |> francis.dup...@fdupont.fr _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
