Re: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-26

Thanks! :)

Regards,

Christer

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: 12 July 2017 21:32
To: Christer Holmberg <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Cc: General Area Review Team <[email protected]>; IETF MMUSIC WG <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-26

On 7/12/17 8:58 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
> Are you ok with my reply?

Yes.

	Thanks,
	Paul

> Regards,
> 
> Christer
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/07/17 12:02, "Christer Holmberg" 
> <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> 
>> Pull request: https://github.com/cdh4u/draft-dtls-sdp/pull/33
>>
>> (I kept the example in Section 8, but I fixed the reference)
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Christer
>>
>>
>> On 10/07/17 11:08, "Christer Holmberg" 
>> <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Paul,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your review! Please see inline.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area 
>>>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by 
>>>> the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like 
>>>> any other last call comments. For more information, please see the 
>>>> FAQ at <​http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>>>
>>>> Document: draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-26
>>>> Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat
>>>> Review Date: 2017-07-07
>>>> IETF LC End Date: 2017-07-24
>>>> IESG Telechat date: TBD
>>>>
>>>> Summary:
>>>>
>>>> This draft is basically ready for publication, but has a few nits 
>>>> that should be fixed before publication.
>>>>
>>>> Issues:
>>>>
>>>> Major: 0
>>>> Minor: 0
>>>> Nits:  4
>>>>
>>>> (1) NIT:
>>>>
>>>> Section 5.3: s/Eventhough/Even though/
>>>
>>> Will be fixed.
>>>
>>>> (2) NIT:
>>>>
>>>> Section 8: s/aTLS/a TLS/
>>>
>>> Will be fixed.
>>>
>>>> (3) NIT:
>>>>
>>>> Section 8: What is the point of including the example? I don't see 
>>>> how it adds anything. Perhaps worked out O/A examples contrasting 
>>>> the differences between the new and existing cases might be 
>>>> marginally helpful. (But IMO not enough to bother with.)
>>>
>>> The idea was to take the existing example from RFC 4572 (I note the 
>>> reference is wrong: s/3261/4572), and show how it looks with the 
>>> tls-id attribute.
>>>
>>>
>>>> (4) NIT:
>>>>
>>>> Section 10.3.2: s/Througout/throughout/
>>>
>>> Will be fixed.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Christer
>>>
>>
> 

_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic