Subject: [siprec] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-siprec-protocol-18: (with COMMENT)

From: "Barry Leiba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 09:52:13 -0700

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-siprec-protocol-18: 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-siprec-protocol/

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

Changing from rs-metadata-request to rs-metadata with XML content
resolves the issue I wanted to discuss, so I'm clearing that.  Thanks for
the change, and for addressing my non-blocking comments as well.  I'll
leave one non-blocking comment below, but it is non-blocking -- no
discussion needed, and if you want to leave the text as it is, that's
fine.

-- Section 8.2.1.1 --

   UAs may receive multiple sets of RTCP Receiver Reports, one or more
   from other UAs participating in the CS, and one from the SRS
   participating in the RS.  A UA SHOULD process the RTCP Receiver
   Reports from the SRS if it is recording-aware.

Is it worth mentioning what the UA is likely to do with the reports from
other UAs (just for information, without 2119 words)?  Would the UA
generally process them too?  Ignore them?  Doesn't matter?  Is there any
advantage one way or another, or any advice that would be useful for
implementors to have?