On 15 Apr 2015, at 4:38, Christer Holmberg wrote:
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 :)
That is absolutely true. And I do think it's worth discussing whether
future payload specs should do that. It's just a matter of who gets
stuck with a new documentation requirement :-)
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.
Thanks!
Regards,
Christer
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
