Re: [Gen-art] [dtn] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-update-09

Hi, On 9 Feb 2024, at 19:51, Ran Atkinson wrote: >> On Feb 7, 2024, at 06:46, Rick Taylor wrote: >> >> The main point of discussion here is about IETF process: obsoleting IRTF >> documents by the IETF is considered unusual. Finding a simple way around >> this, such as not obsoleting 7116 is an a

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-rmcat-rtp-cc-feedback-10

Thanks, Linda. Since these are the same issues raised in your SECDIR review, I’ll not repeat the responses here to avoid fragmenting the discussion. Colin On 9 Aug 2022, at 6:21, Linda Dunbar via Datatracker wrote: > Reviewer: Linda Dunbar > Review result: Almost Ready > > I am the assigned G

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-08

metric block to encode > the number of missing packets. Whether that is an optimization worth the > trouble to do is a question I can't answer. It’s certainly possible to do that, and the WG did discuss optimisations and more complex formats. At present

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art 2nd LC review of draft-ietf-payload-vp8-16 (with summary)

ow/ > > s7: >> the usage of SRTP [RFC3711] is recommended. > RECOMMENDED? No - see RFC 7202. Section A.13 of draft-ietf-payload-rtp-howto-14 has suggested text for this. > s10.2: I suspect that RFC 3551 is normative. It shouldn't need to be. -- Colin Perkins https://csperkins.org/ ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-security-options-09.txt

>> > > > -- > > Magnus Westerlund > > -- > Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM > -- > Ericsson AB

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-jpeg2000-beam-10.txt

utemma, Ph.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] Network Software Development Dept., Common Technology Div., Technology Development Group, Sony Corporation 5-1-12 Kitashinagawa Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo, 141-0001 Japan Tel. +81-3-5448-3175 / fax. +81-3-5448-6438 -- Colin Perkins http://csperkins.org/ __

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-jpeg2000-18.txt

atives may exist. " > > I think this needs to be clearer with respect to the BCP 61 (RFC 3365) > requirement. What is the required minimum security? See draft-perkins-avt-srtp-not-mandatory-00.txt for an initial attempt to answer that question. RTP is intentionally designed to su

[Gen-art] Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-avt-profile-savpf-11.txt

his sentence. Consider putting the condition ("when 2^48...") first, as it is necessary to understand the context of the prior part. Reference 3: No RFC number listed. RFC 4585? Reference 14: A newer version of the referenced draft exists. -- Colin Perkins http://csperkins.org/ ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

[Gen-art] Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-and-rtcp-mux-05.txt

ccupied, > values from the range 194-199 may be used, and then values from the > ranges 1-191 and 224-254. This improves header validity checking of > RTCP packets compared to RTP packets or other unrelated packets. The > values 0 and 255 are avoided for improved validity checking relative to > random packets since all-zeros and all-ones are common values. -- Colin Perkins http://csperkins.org/ ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

[Gen-art] Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-and-rtcp-mux-05.txt

this is not an issue. == Outdated reference: A later version (-17) exists of draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-15 ICE -16 and -17 were both submitted after this draft. The reference was current on submission. -- Colin Perkins http://csperkins.org/ ___ Gen-art

[Gen-art] Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-and-rtcp-mux-05.txt

the guidelines in the RTP/AVP profile [7] for the choice of RTP payload type values, Insert the word "dynamic" between "the choice of" and "RTP payload type values" for clarity. The guidelines in the RTP/AVP profile apply to both static and dynami

[Gen-art] Re: Gen-ART review of IETF LC draft-ietf-dccp-rtp-06.txt

On 20 Jun 2007, at 07:14, Lars Eggert wrote: Colin: Is the current set of changes that were the result of the IETF LC concise enough to be put into an RFC Editor Note? If so, can you send me one before the telechat tonight? Otherwise I'll ask that the document be put into "Revised ID Needed.

[Gen-art] Re: Gen-ART review of IETF LC draft-ietf-dccp-rtp-06.txt

Hi Miguel, On 18 Jun 2007, at 21:00, Miguel Garcia wrote: Some more inline discussion (only points that require further discussion). Thanks again for the comments. More inline. Colin Perkins wrote: On 17 Jun 2007, at 20:54, Miguel Garcia wrote: I have been selected as the General Area

[Gen-art] Re: Gen-ART review of IETF LC draft-ietf-dccp-rtp-06.txt

er is similar to the "UDP" and "TCP" protocol identifiers and describes the transport protocol, but not the upper-layer protocol. NEW: The "DCCP" protocol identifier is similar to the "UDP" and "TCP"

Re: [Gen-art] Re: Gen-ART Last Call Review of draft-ietf-avt-hc-over-mpls-protocol-07

On 8 Feb 2007, at 10:34, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 2007-02-08 07:06, Andrew G. Malis wrote: Spencer, Works for me. Generally, is there another spin of a draft following a gen-art review, or can the changed be handled by instructions to the RFC editor? Generally, it depends ;-) The documen

[Gen-art] Re: Gen ART review of draft-ietf-avt-compact-bundled-evrc-09.txt

ults is a reasonable way to get there. Thanks, --David -Original Message- From: Qiaobing Xie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 1:33 AM To: Colin Perkins Cc: Black, David; gen-art@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[Gen-art] Re: Gen ART review of draft-ietf-avt-compact-bundled-evrc-09.txt

David, Qiaobing, On 9 Oct 2006, at 23:55, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... -- Changes to Default Values In the definition of dtxmin: If this parameter is not present, the default value, 12, as specified in [8] MUST be assumed (note, if a later version of [8] specifies

[Gen-art] Re: Review of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-g729-scal-wb-ext-06

Yes, that was my suggestion. Colin On 19 Jul 2006, at 08:31, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Personally I tend to advocate updating the draft rather than relying on a Note to the RFC Editor when there are more than one or two changes. But please wait for a request from Magnus. Brian Colin

[Gen-art] Re: Review of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-g729-scal-wb-ext-06

Hi Sharon, On 18 Jul 2006, at 18:01, Sharon Chisholm wrote: Adding these clarifications to the document itself would be helpful. Of particular concern would be the ambiguities identified in 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. You may not think they identify a technical problem because you can clarif

[Gen-art] Re: Review of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-g729-scal-wb-ext-06

Sharon, Gen-ART, On 28 Jun 2006, at 14:33, Sharon Chisholm wrote: I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-g729-scal-wb-ext-06.txt For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at . Please resolve these comments