Question: Section 3 appears to define specific bits on the wire. It
defines the order of RTP vs other headers, and defines the setting of
specific bits in the RTP header. Later sections define wire formats
for other headers. Given such definitions, I would expect the
document to be either Experimental or Standards track, rather than
Informational. I presume that this has been addressed, but since the
tracker does not show anything, I am raising the question.
(I suspect that the WGs view is that the formats are all normatively
defined elsewhere, and are just being collected here for
reference. Collecting packet formats by value, rather than by
reference, is nice for books, but not usually a good idea for
RFCs. And at least the RTP header order and header field settings
appear to be defined normatively here.)
Further, the presence of distinctly marked "informative" appendix
indicates that the document is defining expected behavior and is
itself more than informational.
[YJS] The designation of SAToP as standards track,
and of TDMoIP and CESoPSN as informative,
was the result of a 3-year long battle in the PWE3 WG.
Although I quite agree that the document defines a specific
protocol (and one that has been widely deployed),
I suggest not bringing that question up again.
Yes, please can we allow that particular dog to remain soundly asleep! :)
Yaakov's comments to the other issues look fine to me.
- Stewart
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
