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

Hi Christer,

[trimming]

On 3/27/17 7:42 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> 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"

That would also be fine. I have no preference.

> (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.

Yes, I know. I was just trying to be constructive by suggesting 
*something*. My first thought was to indent. But that would require 
reflowing all the text to avoid exceeding line length. That seemed like 
a bad idea.

I'm not attached to this solution. I've complained about the same 
problem in other drafts, but nobody came up with a solution so they 
didn't get resolved. Here I'm not the only one who sees a problem, so 
maybe it is worth trying to find a solution.

	Thanks,
	Paul