Hi, >> Minor Issues: I previously gave the following comment: >> >> “Regarding SDP, I think it would be good to have the ABNF syntax for >> the a=fmtp parameter (currently you only have descriptive text of the >> different parameters). It makes the life for the parser implementers >> much easier :)” >> >> I guess one, by reading section 7 and the examples, can figure out how >> to encode the a=fmtp parameter, but I think it would to explicitly >> define the syntax. > > (For the record, I just recently took over responsibility for PAYLOAD, so if > I'm misinterpreting things, someone please tell me :-) ) > > While I can see that as a "might be nice" addition, I don't think it's > something that we have required of other payload drafts.
After all my years of taking drafts through the IETF publication process, I have learned that there is no such thing as consistency :) > draft-ietf-payload-rtp (in RFC ed queue) says the following about ABNF for > SDP parameters: > > "Not that commonly used in RTP payload formats but may be useful when > defining Media Type parameters of some complexity." > > If I'm reading correctly, the FMTP parameters in this draft fit the pretty > common "semicolon delimited list of parameter=value pairs", so I don't think > this rises to the level of "some complexity". > > So unless you think the parameters in this draft are more complex than > average, I don't think we need to add them at this late stage. It might be > worth discussing whether we should ask authors of future payload drafts to > include ABNF for this sort of thing. I can live without any changes. Regards, Christer _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
