Update to Remove DVI4 from the Recommended Codecs for the RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with Minimal Control (RTP/AVP)
draft-ietf-avtcore-avp-codecs-03
Yes
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Richard Barnes)
(Sean Turner)
(Spencer Dawkins)
No Objection
(Benoît Claise)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Jari Arkko)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Pete Resnick)
(Stewart Bryant)
(Ted Lemon)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -02)
Unknown
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -02)
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -02)
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -02)
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-06-26 for -02)
Unknown
Please add the RFC number of the updated RFC to the Abstract such as: This document updates RFC 3551, the RTP/AVP profile (and by extension, the profiles that build upon it), to reflect changes in audio codec usage since the document was originally published.
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-06-21 for -02)
Unknown
I was initially confused by Section 3, until I read it a few more times, and realized that the second paragraph is not part of this document, but is quoted from 3551. Yes, I think I was being dense. Still, I think the quoted paragraph would get a readability benefit from indentation (as would the modified version in Section 3.1). If you're using xml2rfc, you can simply wrap the text with '<list style="empty"><t>' and '</t></list>'.
(Yeh, nothing is so simple that *some* <strike>fool</strike> AD can't misconstrue it....)
Less trivially:
I think the 2119 usage of "REQUIRE" in the added sentence is not correct. The protocol is not making this a MUST (for which REQUIRE is a synonym). The fact that it's required by some environments simply puts a bit of emphasis on the SHOULD that's already there ("REALLY REALLY SHOULD", in the style of RFC 6919).
I would make the "require" lower case.
(Yeh, nothing is so simple that *some* <strike>nitpicker</strike> AD can't find something to change....)
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02)
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02)
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02)
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-06-23 for -02)
Unknown
- s1: "utility is limited" seems wrong, I think you mean that DVI4 is not or no longer attractive given more modern codecs exist. The current text implies that having a more modern codec installed would make DVI4 perform worse or something. - s3, the 2nd para should be indented - I guess this is the one that puzzled Barry and I can see why.
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02)
Unknown
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02)
Unknown