Re: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-22

Hi Paul,

Thanks for your review! Please see inline.

(1) Nit:

>Regarding the following in section 5.1:
>
>    When an offerer or answerer indicates that it wants to establish a
>    new DTLS association, it needs to make sure that media packets in the
>    existing DTLS association and new DTLS association can be de-
>    multiplexed.
>
>This text presumes there is an existing association. To explicitly cover the case where there is not, I suggest the following:
>
>    When an offerer or answerer indicates that it wants to establish a
>    new DTLS association to replace an existing association, it needs to
>    ensure that media packets in the existing DTLS association and new
>    DTLS association can be de-multiplexed.

I could do that. Or, I could use say "make sure that media packets in *any* existing DTLS association"


>Later in the section there is a language error is the following:
>
>    The certificate received during the DTLS handshake MUST match a
>    certificate fingerprints received in SDP 'fingerprint' attributes
>    according to the procedures defined in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-4572-update].
>
>s/match a/match the/
>
>OR
>
>s/certificate fingerprints/certificate fingerprint/

That was the intention, so I will fix it (s/certificate fingerprints/certificate fingerprint/).


(2) Nit:

>In Section 5.4 there is again a presumption of an existing association in the following:
>
>    If the answer does not establish a new DTLS association, the offerer
>    will continue using the previously established DTLS association.
>
>To fix, I suggest:
>
>    If the offer indicated a desire to reuse an existing DTLS association
>    and the answer does not request establishment of a new DTLS
>    association, the offerer will continue using the previously
>    established DTLS association.

I will fix as suggested.


(3) Minor:

>I concur with the comments in the ops-dir review by Carlos Pignataro regarding the formatting of 
>section 9. He didn't suggest a fix. Perhaps some special marker (e.g. "|" or "<" and ">") can be placed 
>in every line to indicate it is test from or for another document - either at the beginning or end of every line.

I have never seen that been used before - not in documents I have authored, or in documents written by others.


(4) Nit:

>In Section 9:
>
>The following text is repeated multiple times:
>
>    [RFC EDITOR NOTE: Please replace RFCXXXX with the RFC number
>    of this document.]
>
>It would be sufficient and less distracting to the user to simply state this once for the entire document.

I will fix as suggested.


Regards,

Christer