Subject: [MMUSIC] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-mmusic-t140-usage-data-channel-12: (with COMMENT)

From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2020 19:59:38 -0700

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mmusic-t140-usage-data-channel-12: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-t140-usage-data-channel/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for this document.  I have just one comment about BCP 14 key words that
I don’t think has come up elsewhere:

— Section 5.3 —

   It is RECOMMENDED to use the
   default transmission interval of 300 milliseconds [RFC4103], for
   T.140 data channels.  Implementers MAY also use lower values, for
   specific applications requiring low latency, taking the increased
   overhead in consideration.

Given the “RECOMMENDED” in the first sentence, I don’t think the second
sentence is really a BCP 10 “MAY”, but should be “may” (or “might”).  Actually,
I think I would also remove the first comma, as, “Implementers might use lower
values for specific applications requiring low latency, taking the increased
overhead in consideration.”

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2020 06:53:45 +0000

Hi Barry,

Thank You for the review! Please see inline.

>    sentence is really a BCP 10 “MAY”, but should be “may” (or “might”). 

I will s/MAY/might.

> Actually, I think I would also remove the first comma, as, “Implementers might use lower
> values for specific applications requiring low latency, taking the increased overhead in consideration.”
  
I will remove the first comma as suggested.

Regards,

Christer

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2020 10:02:59 -0400

Thanks for the quick reply and for addressing my comment, Christer.

Barry