Subject: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729-04.txt

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 14:57:45 +0100

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729-04.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20131120
IETF LC End Date: 20131127
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Ready

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:
 - Abstract page 1: usually the Abstract should not reference an RFC
  by its number. IMHO here it is the exception: the I-D will be
  included into the next revision of the RFC.

 - I don't like the annexa/annexb name (nor my spell checker) but
  they are the names used by the RFC...

 - ToC page 2 and 7 page 7: Acknowledgement -> Acknowledgment

 - 1 page 3 (wording suggestion): implied if -> implied when

 - 1 page 3: BTW IMHO "use or preferred" should be interpreted
  as preferred in the offer and use in the answer so the RFC is
  correct. But as you mentioned some implementations didn't follow
  the interpretation so I understand why a clarification new
  document (this I-D) is needed. And of course I fully agree with
  3.1 and 3.2.

 - 7 page 7: Note I checked the spelling of "Harprit S. Chhatwal
  (InnoMedia)" (uncommon for our eyes but correct).

Regards

[email-masked]

---

From: "Parthasarathi R" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 21:37:00 +0530

Hi [email-masked],

Thanks a lot for the detailed review comments. 

I'll discuss with Muthu (Co-author) and then incorporate your comments in
the next revision.

Thanks
Partha

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 7:28 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: review of draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729-04.txt
>