I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
Document: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-uemclip-04
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: Feb. 6, 2009
IESG Telechat date: Unknown
Summary: The draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.
Major issues: 1 (see below)
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments: 2 (see below)
Major issue: This is a very well-written draft, complete with SDP
examples. The one major comment I have is in S6.3.1. More
specifically, the list of guidelines provided are not additional
guidelines for establishing a session using an offer-answer
model as much as they are guidelines for using the UEMCLIP format
in SDP. In other words, the bullet list is not changing how
offer-answer works (and it cannot, obviously); but it is providing
better semantics on how to handle offer-answer exchanges
*containing* UEMCLIP format. Does that make sense?
The modified text can be as simple as (note the spelling mistake
correction on Followings):
OLD:
Followings are additional guidelines for establishing a session using
an offer-answer model.
NEW:
The following is a detailed list on the semantics of using
the UEMCLIP payload format in an offer-answer exchange:
Nits/Editorials:
1/ In S1, second paragraph:
s/switched using SDP exchange./changed using an SDP exchange./
2/ In S2, first paragraph:
s/shift to the wideband./shift to using wideband communication./
Thanks,
- vijay
--
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
Email: v...@{alcatel-lucent.com,bell-labs.com,acm.org}
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
