Subject: [Gen-art] [Fwd: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding-dependency-05.txt]

From: Thomas Schierl <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 11:16:08 +0100

Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding-dependency-05.txt
From: Thomas Schierl <[email-masked]>
To: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Cc: General Area Review Team <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], [email-masked], Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>, Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 10:24:51 +0100

Dear Brian, all,

Brian, thanks a lot for carrying out the review!

Here are our replies:

1. We do not think that it is required for the offerer to find out, why 
the offer has been rejected. At least we do not know any context where 
the reason for rejecting an offer is indicated.

2. "Aforementioned" can be removed in RFC editor processing (AUTH48), or 
IESG note.

3. DDP and RDMA in the RFC4296 sense are about as far away technically 
than it gets from SDP signaling.  Confusion is, in our opinion, 
unlikely.  Can we ask the MMUSIC chairs and Cullen for guidance here?

Best regards,
Thomas

-- 
Thomas Schierl
--------------
Fraunhofer HHI