Thanks for responding, Rachel. I think your proposed text is good. I'm not sure what more can be said or done, but this at least acknowledges it.
-- - m&m Matt Miller Cisco Systems, Inc. > On Mar 1, 2016, at 19:23, Huangyihong (Rachel) <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Matt, > > Please see my replies inline. > > BR, > Rachel > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Matt Miller (mamille2) [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 5:20 AM >> To: [email protected]; The IESG; >> [email protected]; [email protected] >> Subject: Review of draft-ietf-avtext-splicing-notificaiton-04 >> >> I am the coincidentally-assigned Gen-ART and SecDir reviewer for this draft. >> The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being >> processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. The Security Directorate reviews >> all >> IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the security area directors. >> Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments that >> arrived >> on time. >> >> For more information on Gen-Art, please see the FAQ at >> >> < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq >. >> >> Document: draft-ietf-avtext-splicing-notification-04 >> Reviewer: Matthew Miller >> Review Date: 2016-02-26 >> IETF LC End Date: 2016-02-26 >> IESG Telechat date: N/A >> >> Summary: >> >> Ready with a minor issue. >> >> Major issues: >> >> Minor issues: >> >> * I didn't see any discussion of the case where the RTP extension and the >> RTCP >> message don't agree on the interval. Well-behaved software shouldn't do >> this, >> but it seems like something that could happen. I'm not sure what should be >> done in this case, but it seems to me like something to at least acknowledge >> it. > > [Rachel]: Good question. Since RTCP message and RTP extension packets are all > from the same main RTP sender, it's the sender's duty to keep them contain > the same interval information. So I don't see any chance that inconsistent > intervals appear. But, I do think it's worth to mention it in the draft. How > about adding a sentence in first paragraph, Section 3.2, like this > "The main RTP sender MUST make sure the splicing information contained in the > RTCP splicing notification message consistent with the information included > in the RTP header extensions. " > So what do you think? > >> >> Nits/editorial comments: >> >> * idnits is reporting a bad reference to "3711" Section 7 "Security >> Considerations", and that RFC 3711 is an unused normative reference. I think >> this is because the pointer to it in Section 7 doesn't start with "RFC". > > [Rachel]: Right. Will fix it. >> >> * In Section 1. "Introduction", it seems to me "However" would be a better >> word than "Nevertheless" to use here. > > [Rachel]: All right. > >> >> >> -- >> - m&m >> >> Matt Miller >> Cisco Systems, Inc.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
