Subject: [AVT] comments on draft-arbeiter-rtp-klv-01

From: Roni Even <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 17:20:38 +0300

Hi,
Sorry for the long delay, I looked at your draft and it needs some editorial
changes before we can propose to accept it as a WG document. 

1. We do not use MIME type  but payload subtype name.
2. The IANA registration is not correct look for example in RFC 5404
3. For session association you can also look at the grouping attribute in
RFC 3388
4. The description of the RTP header may be better, look at RFC 5404 for
example. Also the definition of PT in the table in section 2.5 is not
correct.
5. I did not understand the second paragraph of 3.1. If there is a packet
loss than it is know by the RTP missing sequence number. What is the case
here?
6. In the last paragraph of 4.2 I am not sure what type of multiplexing will
create this problem.
7.In section 7 what do you mean by sub-multiple for the clock rate. I could
not understand it also from the example

Thanks
Roni Even