Subject: [MEDIACTRL] (no subject)

From: "MUNSON, GARY A, ATTLABS" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 15:30:44 -0400

Hi Lorenzo, Chris,

My colleague Bob Epley has flagged a few more corrections (we believe)
for the mrb interface spec

1)	P20, active-mix, line 4:  elements -> element  

2)	P37, 5.2.4.1.2.2, supported-format - should be 'required-format'
here.  "supported" is correct in the Publish interface (Section
5.1.4.10) but it should be "required" in the consumer interface, as it
is in 5.2.4.1.3.2 (under mixerInfo).  This paragraph also leaves out the
sentence "A valid value is a MIME media type which, depending on its
definition, can include additional parameters (e.g., [RFC4281])"  that
appears in the similar sections on -supported- under the Publish
interface. We think that belongs here as well. 

3)	P42, 5.2.4.1.3.1,  mix, line 4:  <codec> -> <rtp-codec>
Likewise in Section 8, near the bottom of p104. 

4)	P46, last sentence in encryption section:  Should say "The
<encryption> element has no child elements.">

We have a couple questions as well.

a)	Section 5.1.4.17  For vxml-support / vxml-mode, RFC 5552 and the
IVR Package are cited as examples. Would RFC 4220 be another appropriate
example (that just didn't happen to get mentioned)?
		
b)	Audio and video mixing modes are left unspecified (i.e., there's
no enumeration, there's no reference to another spec). I believe that's
to allow for whatever modes vendors provide, some of which may
proprietary. So there is no good 'standard' list of mixing modes to
cite/reference. Is our understanding correct?
		
BR,

Gary

---

From: Lorenzo Miniero <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 10:43:19 +0200

Hi Gary,

thanks to both you guys, you really did a thorough review of the text!

I fixed all the issues you found. By fixing them I noticed there was
also an error in the schema: in fact, in the <mixers> element we
not only had the <rtp-codec> name wrong (was <codec>) but it was also
defined as a string rather than a reference to the rtp-codecType as it
should.

About your additional questions:

   a) I assume you meant RFC4240 instead of RFC4220? You're right about
it, I added it to the enumeration and mentioned it in the text where
needed.

   b) Yes, there's no contraint on it at the moment, since there is
none in the mixer package as well. The mixer package deals with it by
referring to the XCON layouts in the text (see 4.2.1.4.2.1), is it ok
if we do the same in the MRB?

As soon as I get an ACK I'll apply these final changes and upload the
new document.

Thanks again!
Lorenzo

On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 15:30:44 -0400
"MUNSON, GARY A, ATTLABS" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> MEDIACTRL mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mediactrl
> Supplemental Web Site:
> http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/mediactrl
> 

-- 
Lorenzo Miniero
Meetecho s.r.l.
http://www.meetecho.com/

---

From: "MUNSON, GARY A, ATTLABS" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 09:31:57 -0400

Hi Lorenzo,

Yes, I meant 4240, not 4220.

Regarding b) below, I think that's fine. I see that the mixer package
describes some XCON layouts, but also allows for non-XCON layouts as
well.

Bob is bringing a pair of 'fresh eyes' to looking closely at the spec,
which is indeed helpful. 

Thanks.

Gary

-----Original Message-----
From: Lorenzo Miniero [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 4:43 AM
To: MUNSON, GARY A, ATTLABS
Cc: [email-masked]; EPLEY, BOB (ATTLABS)
Subject: Re: [MEDIACTRL] (no subject)

Hi Gary,

Thanks again!
Lorenzo

-- 
Lorenzo Miniero
Meetecho s.r.l.
http://www.meetecho.com/