Comments below with [DH].
Dan Hanson
General Dynamics Mission Systems
-----Original Message-----
From: Stewart Bryant via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2022 4:52 AM
To: gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: a...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-scip....@ietf.org
Subject: Genart early review of draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-scip-01
----
External E-mail --- CAUTION: This email originated from outside GDMS. Do not
click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
Review result: Ready with Issues
This simple document is adequate to register the media type as is. There are
however a few small issues that could usefully be addressed.
The introduction could usefully be expanded to include a couple of sentences on
context and a direct reference to the protocols rather than a pointer to the
IANA registry from which the reader has to get a pointer to the protocol.
Bringing forward some material from the background to the introduction or
merging the two sections would achieve this.
The RFC 2119 language is not the latest version:
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED",
"MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as
described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they
appear in all capitals, as shown here.
[DH] The text will be updated to this latest version.
I am surprised that the nits checker did not bring this up.
In the text SCIP is sometimes capitalised and sometimes in lower case, they
clearly mean different things but I could not see any text in the document that
clarified the semantics of each variant.
[DH] We will add a sentence in the 1.1 Conventions section to explain the
differences between "SCIP" and "scip".
The references SCIP210 and SCIP214 are shown as informational. I assume that as
much as anything this is because they are not widely available and strictly you
could just treat them as opaque, but given they are fundamental to what you are
standardising I would have expected them to be normative.
[DH] The AVTCORE WG determined that SCIP-210 and SCIP-214 should be treated as
opaque, therefore they would be informational references.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
