Charles,
Looks pretty good to me. Thanks for considering my suggestions.
Kind regards,
-Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Eckel (eckelcu) [mailto:eckelcu(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com]
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 4:24 PM
To: Peter Yee;
draft-ietf-siprec-protocol(_dot_)all(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; IETF Discussion Mailing List
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-siprec-protocol-16
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your detailed review and great comments. I¹ve added proposed
resolutions inline.
On 5/16/15, 4:16 AM, "Peter Yee" <peter(_at_)akayla(_dot_)com> wrote:
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-siprec-protocol-16
Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review Date: May-15-2015
IETF LC End Date: May-15-2015
IESG Telechat date: TBD
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed
standard but has open issues, described in the review. [Ready with
issues]
The draft specifies entities and a protocol using SIP, SDP, and RTP for
recording communication sessions. It provides the ability to notify
UAs that they are being recorded and for UAs to notify the recording
system of their recording preference.
The document is well written and has no obvious major technical issues.
Major issues: None
Minor issues:
Page 21, section 8.1.4, last sentence: what does “appropriately".
Specify where is the appropriate interpretation defined or provide it
here.
I propose replacing
"interpret the CSRC list appropriately when received." with "interpret the
CSRC list per RFC 3550 when received."
That seems like a helpful clarification.
Nits:
NB: Anything below marked with an asterisk before the line is a
technical change; the rest are purely editorial and of lesser importance.
Lots of good catches here and all suggested changes made with the few
exceptions noted inline.
Page 15, section 7.2, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: Would this sentence
be more correct if rewritten for clarity as: "When the SRS is ready to
receive recorded streams, the SRS sends a new SDP offer and sets the
a=recvonly attribute in the media streams.²?
I think either construction gets the point across. It left as is in order
to
be consistent with the structure of the previous sentence.
Okay.
Page 33, last paragraph, 2nd sentence: Why not state this in the
affirmative: ³Any subsequent partial updates will only be dependent on
the metadata sent in this full metadata snapshot and any intervening
partial updates.²
I find the current construction to be simpler.
As you wish. :-)
Thanks so much,
Charles