Subject: Re: [AVT] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-avt-rtp-hdrext-00.txt

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 11:50:05 +0000

Dave,

On 30 Jan 2006, at 23:30, Dave Singer wrote:
> I re-did these in XML2RFC, and I hope dealt with your issues.

Thanks - these are much improved, and go through the idnits checker  
tool without complaint.

Some comments on the smpte-rtp draft:

- I'd prefer if the introduction came first, before the Requirements  
Notation

- I'm happy that a new RTCP packet type is used. You should pick an  
unused RTCP packet
   type number and use that in section 5.2, and include the  
registration template for
   the packet type in the IANA considerations.

- The IANA considerations needs to include registration templates for  
the SDP signalling
   used in section 4.

- I'm still concerned that this registers an extension name in the  
org.smpte namespace.
   It should probably be in either the org.ietf or arpa namespace?

On the rtp-hdrext draft:

- Again, I'd prefer if the introduction came first, before the  
Requirements Notation

- Section 8 needs to be in the IANA Considerations, and be written in  
the form of the
   template from sdp-new

- Section 10 needs to define the management rules for the namespaces  
(which presumably
   say Standards Action (in RFC 2434 terminology) for org.ietf and  
arpa, but have more
   relaxed rules for other names).

> If you're happy, I'll re-submit to the secretariat so that they can  
> be discussed (and maybe finished).

Please do submit them. I'd like to see comments from other members of  
the working group on these drafts too.

Colin

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