Responses prefixed with [PEY] below.
Kind regards,
-Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Gunnar Hellström [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2021 11:36 AM
To: Peter Yee; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Subject: Re: Genart last call review of
draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-mix-14
Continuing with comments and edit proposals from "Nits/editorial
comments:" below.
Den 2021-05-06 kl. 05:41, skrev Peter Yee via Datatracker:
> Reviewer: Peter Yee
> Review result: Ready with Issues
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> Document: draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-mix-14
> Reviewer: Peter Yee
> Review Date: 2021-05-05
> IETF LC End Date: 2021-05-03
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> Summary: This draft specifies updates to RFC 4103 to allow real-time text
> mixing for both multiparty-aware and multiparty-unaware participants. It has
> some minor issues that should be addressed before publication. [Ready with
> issues]
> Nits/editorial comments:
> Change “multiparty capable” to “multiparty-capable” throughout the document.
[GH] I suggest to change to "multiparty-aware" instead for consistency.
[PEY] Fine by me.
> Page 6, section 1.1, 2nd paragraph: insert “are” before “as”.
[GH] Recently changed to just "are defined in" by proposal in another
review. I suggest to keep that.
[PEY] Agreed.
> Page 6, “multiparty-unaware”: change “stands for” to “describes”.
[GH] Accepted and done.Your use of hyphen in "multiparty-unaware" made
me understand that that term also should be hyphenated all through the
document. Done.
[PEY] Yes, I failed to include that hyphenation in the general nits although I
marked all of them in my review copy.
> Page 29, “BOM”, 1st sentence: insert “it” before “SHALL”.
[GH] Accepted, but part of the first statement is separated out to a
sentence of its own: " It SHALL be deleted from incoming streams."
[PEY] That's fine. I didn't fuss so much over sentence structure for the
definitions.
> Page 32, section 6.1, title: drop the “e.g.” in the subsection title.
[GH] Not done. Many countries have their own terms for textphones. In
USA and a few other countries (Canada, Australia) they are called TTY.
That term is not understood in other countries. "Textphone" may not be
understood in USA. Therefore I prefer having both the general term and
the (e.g., TTYs) in the heading.
[PEY] With that understanding, I'm fine leaving an examples or two in the body
text. As a matter of style, I don't think examples should appear in the title,
but I won't argue the point. It's only style. :-)
> Page 32, section 6.1, 2nd paragraph, parenthetical: perhaps you want “i.e.,”
> instead of “e.g.” here given that further down you put “TTYS” in another
> parenthetical as though it weren’t just an example but the only exemplar of
> this type of device under discussion.
[GH] No. I did not mean "i.e.,". "TTY" is just one example with specific
technology.
So, I suggest to keep this sentence: "One case that may occur is a
gateway to PSTN for communication with textphones (e.g., TTYs)." While
in the other places where (TTY) was mentioned it is deleted with its
parenthesis.
[PEY] Okay.
> Page 32, section 6.1, 2nd paragraph, last sentence: delete “make”. Change
> “adaptions” to “adapt”. Delete “for” before “the functional”. Delete “(TTY)”.
[GH] I also needed to insert "to" before "adapt" to make:
"This solution makes it possible to adapt
to the functional limitations of the textphone."
[PEY] I'm fine with the that sentence.
Thanks again for the thorough review. I have next version ready, also
including changed caused by security comments and discussed in other mail.
Do you want me to submit the new version.
[PEY] If you have no further changes pending from other reviews, it probably
makes sense to submit a new version with everything incorporated. I admit that
I didn't thoroughly check the diffs between -14 and -16 to see if any of my
proposed changes clashed.
Regards
Gunnar
--
Gunnar Hellström
GHAccess
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
