Re: [AVTCORE] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-avtcore-multiplex-guidelines-08

Magnus: Thank you for your time looking at my review.

More inline; I will cut the extraneous text below and retain the text that
provides context.

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 3:07 AM Magnus Westerlund <
[email protected]> wrote:

> [...]
>


> > - S3.2.1, third paragraph: Here, is the assumption that the "single
> endpoint"
> >   has multiple network attachments, each with its own IP address?  If so,
> >   perhaps it is better to say so.  The text talks about multiple UDP
> flows being
> >   identified by their UDP source port and destination IP address,
> however, if
> >   the "single endpoint" has only one network attachment, isn't the port
> number
> >   enough to identify the flows?  I know it can get arbitrarily complex if
> >   multiple IP addresses are bound to the single network attachment
> point, etc.,
> >   however, the intent of this document is to reduce ambiguity around RTP
> >   multiplexing, so it is best that it lays out its assumptions in detail
> so as
> >   to not add to the noise.
>
> It is intended to generalize it so that it works in cases it has
> multiple IP addresses. However, the main point is that traffic related
> to one RTP session can flow across multiple UDP flows, independent if
> there are one or more IP addresses involved.
>
> I guess that last clarification could be added in a new sentence before
> the one that starts with "Another example ...".
>

Sounds good.

[...]

>   NEW:
> >   The term "format" here includes any artifacts described by out-of-band
> >   signalling means; in SDP, the term "format" includes media type, RTP
> >   timestamp sampling rate, codec, codec configuration, payload format
> >   configurations, and various robustness mechanisms such as redundant
> encodings
> >   [RFC2198].
>
> I agree that whatever is not the best term. However, I think artifact is
> the wrong term. Looking for example at Merriam Webster's definition it
> sounds wrong:
>
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/artifact
>
> maybe
>
> NEW:
>   The term "format" here includes those aspects described by out-of-band
>   signalling means; in SDP, the term "format" includes media type, RTP
>   timestamp sampling rate, codec, codec configuration, payload format
>   configurations, and various robustness mechanisms such as redundant
> encodings
>   [RFC2198].
>

I will leave it to your sound editorial judgement above. Personally, I
think artifact is fine as it denotes a by product of a particular human
endeavour (multimedia protocol design).  But I am fine with "aspects" as
well, as you suggest.  Certainly, both these choices are better than the
original wording.

> - S4.1.1, first and second paragraphs: There is an overuse of "one" or
> "ones" in
> >   this paragraph.  In different context, "one" may refer to a person or
> it may
> >   refer to a way of enumerating or counting some things.  It is not
> clear what
> >   is being referred to here by using "one".  For example, "where one
> want to
> >   interconnect", here is it the one referring to one of the many
> applications?
> >   Or is it referring to a user?
>
> See your point. In some cases it is the user or a system designer.
>

Great, thanks.

The below nits we will go through and update the document.
>

Sounds good.  Thanks again for your time.

Cheers,

- vijay

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt