Re: [AVTCORE] comments on draft-ietf-avtcore-idms-04
2012-06-08 07:44:18 GMT
Thanks for your valuable review. Comments inline. We will upload a new version somewhere next week.
From: avt-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces <at> ietf.org]
On Behalf Of Roni Even
Sent: vrijdag 25 mei 2012 0:56
To: avt <at> ietf.org
Subject: [AVTCORE] comments on draft-ietf-avtcore-idms-04
I reviewed the draft and have some comments
1. In section 6 you have the sentence "If the RTCP Packet Sender is an SC (SPST=1) or an MSAS (SPST=2)" but above the value 2 is not defined for this document. Do you expect systems that support this document to also support the ETSI XR report from the MSAS?
RvB: The idea is that this document defines SPST 1 and 2, while the ETSI document provides some optional extensions (e.g. SPST 3 and 4).
2. In section 6 when defining Packet Presented NTP timestamp it says "This timestamp reflects the wall clock time at the moment the data contained in the first octet of the associated RTP packet is presented to the user " I am not sure how to know this since the displayed information is not the RTP information but the decoded information so it is not clear what is the first byte. I think that maybe it will good to state in the definition here and in the packet received that it is the first byte of the first packet in the frame or the first byte in the rendered frame. I think that in section 7 you have a better definition.
RvB: Your right, I will change the definition to reflect that.
3. About the SDP parameters in section 9 and 10. Are these negotiated between the MCs and the MSAS or just announced by the MSAS. It will be good to clarify the usage
RvB: We will add a section to describe how the SDP parameters can be used. In summary: in most cases the SDP parameters are negotiated. However, in some cases (e.g. IPTV Multicast scenarios), they might be announced by the MSAS.
4. I understand that you list the two SDP parameter but the SC need one of them depending if it supports the ETSI version or this one. Based on the previous question response it will be good to list the proposed SDP sent from the MSAS.
RvB: We will add a section with some recommendations on how the MSAS should deal with the different SDP parameters.
5. I am also not sure how the MSAS will know if to send the RTCP message or the RTCP-XR message. It is mentioned in section 11 what it should do but not how the MSAS know which one to send.
RvB: This will be covered by the section proposed under 4)
6. In section 13 it will be good to say that the security consideration of RFC 3611 apply here also.
RvB: I agree, I will add it.
7. The IANA section is not clear explain one by one what to do with the four entities. As for the ETSI ones (the RTCP-XR and SFP) do you want to change them or have a reference to this document, if not they are not needed as IANA consideration since there is no IANA action there.
RvB: The idea is that we don’t change the ETSI ones to maintain compatibility. I will clarify this section to reflect that.
8. You can remove section 16.
Roni Even as Individual
This e-mail and its contents are subject to the DISCLAIMER at http://www.tno.nl/emaildisclaimer
_______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance avt <at> ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt