ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [avtext] Genart LC review: draft-ietf-avtext-rtp-grouping-taxonomy-06

2015-05-14 15:45:00
As an author of the only draft in the RFC Editor queue that's waiting on
this taxonomy draft, (that would be draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp) I certainly
did not put any pressure on anyone to rush publication of this taxonomy
draft.

The normative reference that's causing the dart draft to wait for this
taxonomy draft exists because it's important a single set of terminology
be used with consensus on what the terms mean.  IMHO, getting RFC content
right is much more important than getting RFCs published quickly.

Thanks,
--David

-----Original Message-----
From: Gen-art [mailto:gen-art-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of 
DRAGE, Keith
(Keith)
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 3:45 PM
To: Robert Sparks; General Area Review Team; avtext(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; 
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
draft-ietf-avtext-rtp-grouping-taxonomy(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [avtext] Genart LC review: draft-ietf-avtext-rtp-
grouping-taxonomy-06

In regard to the summary comment, I would like to confirm that the issue of
when to publish was extensively discussed in the working group and between the
working group chairs and the authors. It was agreed that nothing would be
achieved by waiting and therefore there was consensus to move forward.

The remainder I will leave to the document editor.

Keith
AVTEXT working group co-chair

-----Original Message-----
From: avtext [mailto:avtext-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Robert Sparks
Sent: 14 May 2015 20:22
To: General Area Review Team; avtext(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; 
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
draft-ietf-avtext-rtp-grouping-taxonomy(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: [avtext] Genart LC review:
draft-ietf-avtext-rtp-grouping-taxonomy-06

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-avtext-rtp-grouping-taxonomy-06
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 14 May 2015
IETF LC End Date: 18 May 2015
IESG Telechat date: Not currently scheduled

Summary: This draft is on the right track, but has open issues.

This draft has clearly helped progress conversations across
several working groups, particularly around grouping streams.
It's good that it was put together. I worry a little about
the timing of publishing it as an RFC now (is that driven by
other documents wanting to reference this normatively?)
rather than keeping most of it as a living document
somewhere. That said, I don't think publishing it as an RFC
is going to hurt anything, but since future readers aren't
going to be focusing so hard on the current conversations, I
want to check on a couple of things:

Major issues:

I'm surprised that there is no mention of how SRTP fits into
the vocabulary this document builds. Would it be a mistake
for someone to think of SRTP as what this document calls a
transformation? Are there any consequences of using SRTP on
one or more of the streams being associated that impact how
you would talk about the association? (There are certainly
consequences about which elements can see into the various streams).

Minor issues:

The title says this document is about grouping. While
conversations around grouping motivated the document, the
text goes well beyond describing grouping.
The abstract and introduction don't contain the word
'grouping'; instead, they cast the document as being about
describing sources, but the document goes well beyond a
taxonomy of sources. It suggest reworking these sections to
reflect what the document ended up being.

Nits/editorial comments:

In more-or-less document order:

The document call out the possibility of loops, but no
discussion shows the use of one. What motivated calling out
the possibility?

The use of "Characteristics" is inconsistent across the
sections. Sometimes the bullets list things that could be
used to classify a thing, and sometimes they appear to be a
set of observations about the thing. It's hard to tell
whether the lists are intended to be complete or exclusive,
depending on the section. Perhaps these should be worked
mostly back into the prose, leaving points here that are
specific to clarifying the taxonomy?

"The actually used codec is also an important factor in many
communication systems."
is unclear. What's this trying to say?

In 2.1.10, 2nd paragraph, is "at least some content"
accurate? What about the edge cases where encoding results in
an empty stream (an audio stream that is silent, where the
codec does silence suppression resulting in no bits out for
example). You're still going to be emitting RTCP. Is this
section saying that the RTP stream doesn't qualify as a Source stream?

In 2.2.1 it's not clear what "ensure Endpoint Identification"
means. Did you mean something like 'establish' instead of 'ensure'?

At the end of the first paragraph of 3.6, you point forward
to 3.12 for a discussion of other considerations effecting
which usage is desirable.
3.12 doesn't talk about that. It only talks about how you
separate the streams. What is "other considerations" supposed
to be pointing to?

Very tiny nits and suggestions:
2.1.4 paragraph 1 : s/as NTP synchronized/as an NTP
synchronized clock/
2.1.4 last bullet : In "At any point, it", the word 'it' is ambiguous.
2.1.6 Characteristics bullet: This isn't a characteristic of
a Media encoder.
       The sentence is almost a cyclic definition. I suggest
removing the
       characteristics section from this (or saying something
different).
2.1.19 "the Media Transport's transformation" is ambiguous. Which one?
        Did you mean "the combination of of the transport
sender, network
        transport, and transport receiver transformations",
or something
        like it?
3.5 Consider clarifying "mono encoder"
3.6 last sentence: s/This to/This is to/ or s/This to
enable/This enables/





_______________________________________________
avtext mailing list
avtext(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avtext

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art