Hi Elwyn,

Please see inline for a comment on your suggestion and thank you for the nits. 
The updated proposal and the nits correction (some modified) have been written 
up as PR:

https://github.com/gloinul/draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry/pull/2


From: Elwyn Davies via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org>
Date: Thursday, 19 September 2024 at 23:21
To: gen-art@ietf.org <gen-art@ietf.org>
Cc: a...@ietf.org <a...@ietf.org>, 
draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry....@ietf.org 
<draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry....@ietf.org>
Subject: Genart early review of draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry-02
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review result: Ready with Nits

Early review requested from the General Area Review team
========================================================

Summary: The document covers the situation (cock up!) appropriately.  It is
essentially ready.  I have suggested that some additional modification of the
note in the IANA registry being shut down would be helpful.  There are also
half a dozen editorial nits.

Minor Suggestion

The IANA Registry affected by this document (RTP Payload Format Media Types)
references RFC 4855 and claims that it contains registration procedures and a
registration template.  This document correctly asserts that this is untrue.
Perhaps this document should additionally ask  IANA to modify the reference to
[RFC4855], [RFC-TBD1] and replace the second para of the note as follows:

OLD:
Registration procedures and a registration template can be found in [RFC4855].

NEW:
It was previously stated that registration procedures and a registration
template can be found in [RFC4855].  This is not actually the case and
[RFC4855] has been updated by [RFC-TBD1].

END

MW: I think your suggestion is a good one. However, your new text needs to be 
corrected as this document does not update RFC 4855, only RFC 8088. I would 
suggest that we rather use this as a new sentence:
NEW:
It was previously stated that registration procedures and a registration
template can be found in [RFC4855].  This is not actually the case as
discussed by [RFC-TBD1].

This would be followed by the the text in this document starting "This registry
has been closed..."

Editorial Nits

Abstract, s1:  Specifications not being sentient beings (probably).... s/to
register themselves/ to specify registration of the format/

Abstract: s/"RTP Payload Formats Media Types"./"RTP Payload Formats Media
Types" created by RFC 8088./ (which will suppress IDNITS complaints about not
seeing RFC 8988 in the abstract/)

s1, para 1:  s/RTP payload formats/RTP payload formats created according to
[RFC8088]/

s1, para 2:  s/various signalling usage/its various signalling usages/

s3, para 1: s/mandates/mandates in its IANA Considerations (Section 7.4)/

s4, para 2 (just after Table 1): s/add the following to the note to the
registry:/add the following note to the registry:/

MW: Clarified that I want to add the note to the existing registry.

/Magnus
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list -- gen-art@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to gen-art-le...@ietf.org

Reply via email to