Re: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc3388bis-03.txt

Hi Elwyn,

I have made the change you suggested. I will be submitting a new 
revision right after the blackout period.

Thanks,

Gonzalo

Elwyn Davies wrote:
> Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
>> Hi Elwyn,
>>
>> thanks for your review. Answers inline:
>>
>> Elwyn Davies wrote:
>>> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
>>> reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
>>> _http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html_).
>>>
>>> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
>>> you may receive.
>>>
>>> [Apologies fhe late review. I missed the assignment while I was away 
>>> on holiday.]
>>>
>>> Document: draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc3388bis-03.txt
>>> Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
>>> Review Date: 17 October 2009
>>> IETF LC End Date: 14 October 2009
>>> IESG Telechat date: (if known) -
>>>
>>> Summary: Almost ready.  Couple of minor nits only.
>>> Major issues: 0
>>>
>>> Minor issues: 2
>>> ss4 and 5:  Technically the BNF in these sections is ABNF (since it 
>>> adds to that in RFC 4566). It should therefore be described as such 
>>> and refer to RFC 4234.
>>
>> I fixed this while addressing the discusses this document got.
> OK
>>
>>> s9.4.2, last para:  How does the offerer know that the grouping is 
>>> the cause of the error message? (This comment may be due to my lack 
>>> of understanding of the minutiae of SDP).
>>
>> I answered this question in a separate email.
> and I replied to that.
>>
>>
>>> Nits/editorial comments:
>>>
>>> s7, para 2:  The use of 'wall clock' is jargon.  Something like 'into 
>>> a local absolute time value' (there is probably a better way of 
>>> putting this) would be better.
>>
>> Fixed.
>>
>>>
>>> s9.1.1, next to last para: s/lines contained/line contained/
>>
>> Fixed.
>>
>>> s9.3, para 1: s/every semantics/every semantic/
>>
>> The document treats the word "semantics" as a singular word many times 
>> because it is referring to the value of the semantics field. I think 
>> if we write "semantics value" instead of only semantics, it would be 
>> OK. If you think this would be OK, let me know and I will change it 
>> the whole document.
> I think you only need to change the case in s9.3 para 1.  
> s/semantics/semantics value/ would be fine.  My mistake really - 
> 'semantics' is actually a singular noun in English (as well as being the 
> name of the element in the grammar) whereas semantic is an adjective.
> 
> Regards,
> Elwyn
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Gonzalo
>>
>