Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729-04.txt
Hi, Regarding this change, I think we should keep the original version since this is a direct quote from RFC4856. Cheers, Ari On 29/01/14 07:07, Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal) wrote: |- 1 page 3 (wording suggestion): implied if - implied when Addressed. ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729-04.txt
Hi Francis, We have incorporated your comments in the next revision (will be publishing it shortly). |- Abstract page 1: usually the Abstract should not reference an RFC | by its number. IMHO here it is the exception: the I-D will be | included into the next revision of the RFC. We have removed the reference to RFC4856 from the Abstract. |- I don't like the annexa/annexb name (nor my spell checker) but | they are the names used by the RFC... Right, annexa/annexb name is unavoidable. |- ToC page 2 and 7 page 7: Acknowledgement - Acknowledgment Addressed. |- 1 page 3 (wording suggestion): implied if - implied when Addressed. |- 1 page 3: BTW IMHO use or preferred should be interpreted | as preferred in the offer and use in the answer so the RFC is | correct. But as you mentioned some implementations didn't follow | the interpretation so I understand why a clarification new | document (this I-D) is needed. And of course I fully agree with | 3.1 and 3.2. You got it right.. |- 7 page 7: Note I checked the spelling of Harprit S. Chhatwal | (InnoMedia) (uncommon for our eyes but correct). Thank you for that.. Muthu |-Original Message- |From: Parthasarathi R [mailto:par...@parthasarathi.co.in] |Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 9:37 PM |To: francis.dup...@fdupont.fr; gen-art@ietf.org |Cc: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729@tools.ietf.org |Subject: RE: review of draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729-04.txt | |Hi francis.dup...@fdupont.fr, | |Thanks a lot for the detailed review comments. | |I'll discuss with Muthu (Co-author) and then incorporate your comments in |the next revision. | |Thanks |Partha | | -Original Message- | From: francis.dup...@fdupont.fr [mailto:francis.dup...@fdupont.fr] | Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 7:28 PM | To: gen-art@ietf.org | Cc: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729@tools.ietf.org | Subject: review of draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729-04.txt | | I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on | Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at | | http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq. | | Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments | you may receive. | | Document: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729-04.txt | Reviewer: Francis Dupont | Review Date: 20131120 | IETF LC End Date: 20131127 | IESG Telechat date: unknown | | Summary: Ready | | Major issues: None | | Minor issues: None | | Nits/editorial comments: | - Abstract page 1: usually the Abstract should not reference an RFC | by its number. IMHO here it is the exception: the I-D will be | included into the next revision of the RFC. | | - I don't like the annexa/annexb name (nor my spell checker) but | they are the names used by the RFC... | | - ToC page 2 and 7 page 7: Acknowledgement - Acknowledgment | | - 1 page 3 (wording suggestion): implied if - implied when | | - 1 page 3: BTW IMHO use or preferred should be interpreted | as preferred in the offer and use in the answer so the RFC is | correct. But as you mentioned some implementations didn't follow | the interpretation so I understand why a clarification new | document (this I-D) is needed. And of course I fully agree with | 3.1 and 3.2. | | - 7 page 7: Note I checked the spelling of Harprit S. Chhatwal | (InnoMedia) (uncommon for our eyes but correct). | | Regards | | francis.dup...@fdupont.fr ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
Re: [Gen-art] [imapext] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-qresync-rfc5162bis-09
Alexey, On 1/28/14, 9:37 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: I think David's right that some version of what Eliot said: there is a requirement for strict syntax parsing. If the client blows it in any way, the server SHOULD return an error with a BAD response. ...should be added to the section about the line-length limit. A sentence or two should do nicely. Yes, I agree. Then my suggestion is to push out a new version with some text along these lines before the teleconference, please (tomorrow would be ideal). I will note that I believe this advice to be general in nature and not limited to this capability, but we certainly can reinforce the point here, and restate it if/when someone does an update to 3501 (probably when I have grandchildren, I would think). Eliot ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729-04.txt
Hi Ari, Good catch. Will retrain the existing text for this one.. thanks, Muthu |-Original Message- |From: Ari Keränen [mailto:ari.kera...@ericsson.com] |Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 5:16 PM |To: Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal); Parthasarathi R; francis.dup...@fdupont.fr; gen-art@ietf.org |Cc: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729@tools.ietf.org; Flemming Andreasen (fandreas) |Subject: Re: review of draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729-04.txt | |Hi, | |Regarding this change, I think we should keep the original version since |this is a direct quote from RFC4856. | | |Cheers, |Ari | |On 29/01/14 07:07, Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal) wrote: | |- 1 page 3 (wording suggestion): implied if - implied when | | Addressed. ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
