Subject: [MMUSIC] Francesca Palombini's No Objection on draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-04: (with COMMENT)

From: Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2021 06:23:24 -0700

Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-04: 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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis/

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

Thank you for the work on this document.

Thanks to Claudio Allocchio for the ART ART review: I agree with him that
mentioning IETF 110 in Section 1.4 seem strange, and I would suggest rewording
to remove that. Additionally in the same section, mentioning erratas by their
numbers does not help a reader who is not familiar with the IETF errata
reporting system: instead, I would suggest to rephrase so to give a high level
summary to the reader about what these erratas were about.

Below, two nits I happened to notice.

Francesca

## Nits

1. ----

   *  In a subsequent offer, or in an answer (initial of subsequent),

FP: s/of/or

2. ----

   If the
   answer wants to move the "m=" section out of the BUNDLE group, it
   will have to first accept it

FP: s/answer/answerer

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2021 17:40:51 +0000

Hi Francesca,

Thank You for the review! Please see inline.

>Thanks to Claudio Allocchio for the ART ART review: I agree with him that mentioning IETF 110 in Section 1.4 seem strange, and I would suggest rewording to remove that.

I can remove the sentence.

---

>Additionally in the same section, mentioning erratas by their numbers does not help a reader who is not familiar with the IETF errata reporting system: instead, I would suggest to
>rephrase so to give a high level summary to the reader about what these erratas were about.

The erratas were fixing a couple minor editorial and reference nits, so I don't think we need to describe those.

---

>   *  In a subsequent offer, or in an answer (initial of subsequent),

Will fix as suggested.

---

2. ----

>   will have to first accept it

Will fix as suggestd.

---

Regards,

Christer

---

From: Francesca Palombini <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2021 13:24:41 +0000

Thanks Christer!

Francesca

On 26/08/2021, 19:40, "Christer Holmberg" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    Hi Francesca,

    ---

    ---

    Will fix as suggested.

    ---

    2. ----

    Will fix as suggestd.

    ---

    Regards,

    Christer