Subject: Re: [AVT] Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-midi-format-13 and draft-ietf-avt-rtp-midi-guidelines-13

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 11:54:33 +0100

The WG last calls have concluded.

Some comments has been raised so an updated draft will be submitted. As 
these changes are mostly editorial and effect only the guidelines which 
are informational. Thus no second WG last call will be held and instead 
as soon the updated drafts are available it will be requested to be 
submitted.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> This announces the working group last call for "RTP Payload Format for 
> MIDI" to be published as proposed standard and "An Implementation Guide 
> for RTP MIDI" as informational RFC. Unless substantial issues has been 
> raised before 12.00 CET the 5th of December we will request publication 
> of this document.
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-midi-format-13.txt
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-midi-guidelines-13.txt 
> 
> 
> Best Regards
> 
> Magnus Westerlund
> AVT Chair
> 
> Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
> Torshamsgatan 23           | Fax   +46 8 7575550
> S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Audio/Video Transport Working Group
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
> 

-- 

Magnus Westerlund

Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
Torshamsgatan 23           | Fax   +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt

---

From: lazzaro <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 11:11:03 -0800

Hi everyone,

On Dec 6, 2005, at 7:15 AM, Magnus Westerlund  
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> Some comments has been raised so an updated draft will be  
> submitted. As these changes are mostly editorial and effect only  
> the guidelines which are informational. Thus no second WG last call  
> will be held and instead as soon the updated drafts are available  
> it will be requested to be submitted.

I have submitted draft-ietf-avt-rtp-midi-guidelines-14.txt
and draft-ietf-avt-rtp-midi-format-14.txt to internet-drafts.
Also available via the Berkeley mirror site:

http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~lazzaro/sa/pubs/txt/current-rtp-midi.txt
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~lazzaro/sa/pubs/txt/current-guide.txt

There was one normative change to the format document.
I discovered a typo in Appendix C.2.3, in the definition of
chapter inclusion parameters for Chapter C.  Per Magnus's
request, I post diffs for this section.

This C.2.3 paragraph below has changed in -14.txt:

[old version]

For Chapter C, the field list may take on values in the range 0 to 511.
A field value X in the range 0-255 refers to a controller number X, and
indicates that the controller number does not use enhanced Chapter C
encoding.  A field value X in the range 256-511 refers to a controller
number "X minus 256", and indicates the controller number does use the
enhanced Chapter C encoding.

[new version]

For Chapter C, the field list may take on values in the range 0 to 255.
A field value X in the range 0-127 refers to a controller number X, and
indicates that the controller number does not use enhanced Chapter C
encoding.  A field value X in the range 128-255 refers to a controller
number "X minus 128", and indicates the controller number does use the
enhanced Chapter C encoding.

[end of diff]

---

In addition, the C.2.3 paragraph below has also changed:

[old version]

A Chapter C field list MUST NOT encode conflicting information about the
enhanced encoding status of a particular controller number.  For
example, values 0 and 256 MUST NOT both be coded by a field list.

[new version]

A Chapter C field list MUST NOT encode conflicting information about the
enhanced encoding status of a particular controller number.  For
example, values 0 and 128 MUST NOT both be coded by a field list.

[end of diff]

---
John Lazzaro
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~lazzaro
lazzaro [at] cs [dot] berkeley [dot] edu
---