Subject: [AVT] Comments on the header extensions draft

From: "Tom-PT Taylor" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 17:11:08 -0500

This draft is about ready for WGLC, but I have a few small comments that 
should be addressed before we go there.

1. Section 5, second paragraph.

On a quick read this paragraph is self-contradictory. I suggest 
rewording the last sentence as follows:

Old (showing the whole para for context):

    A usable mapping MUST use IDs in the range 1-14, and each ID in this
    range MUST be used only once for each media (or only once if the
    mappings are session level).  Offer/Answer (see below) is one context
    where IDs outside this range are used during negotiation.

New (last sentence only):

    Mappings which do not conform to these rules MAY be presented, for 
instance during offer/answer negotiation as described in the next 
section, but remapping to conformant values will be necessary before 
they can be applied.

2. Section 5 shows a syntax which is refined in section 7. There should 
perhaps be a forward reference to the latter. Of more concern is that 
the section 5 syntax does not show the direction attribute which appears 
in the example of the next section. I suggest adding direction in 
section 5 as follows:

Old:

a=extmap:<value> <URI> <extensionattributes>

New:

a=extmap:<value>["/"<direction>] <URI> <extensionattributes>

3. References

(a) Could you please designate the reference as [RFC4566] rather than 
[RFC2327] (global change). Also delete the reference to the sdp-new 
draft in the first paragraph of section 9.2.

(b) Please change the title of section 11 to "Normative References".

(c) Please update the reference from RFC 2396 to RFC 3986 (same authors, 
same title without the "s" on "identifier", new date January 2005).

4. Appendices

Appendix A would more typically be a section (say section 11, with 
references becoming section 12). Appendix B should now be deleted. You 
can indicate the changes in your next version in an E-mail to the list 
when announcing the new version.

Tom Taylor

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

---

From: "Even, Roni" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 10:53:19 +0200

Hi,
I think Tom covered most of the issues one item he forgot is the IANA registration section.

For the SDP section look for example at the Label RFC in mmusic. The IANA section needs to have all the information enabling IANA to just cut the information from the section. This means the contact should be specified and the reference should say RFCxxxx enabling it to be replaced with the RFC number allocated for the section. Also you do not need to list the options for each item.
The same for the namespace

Thanks

Roni

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom-PT Taylor [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 12:11 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: Dave Singer; Desineni, Harikishan; Colin Perkins; Even, Roni
> Subject: Comments on the header extensions draft
> 
> **************************************************************************
> **********
> This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
> PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer
> viruses.
> **************************************************************************
> **********
> 
>