Forward Error Correction Grouping Semantics in Session Description Protocol
draft-ietf-mmusic-fec-grouping-05
Yes
(Cullen Jennings)
No Objection
(Bill Fenner)
(Dan Romascanu)
(David Kessens)
(Jari Arkko)
(Jon Peterson)
(Lars Eggert)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Mark Townsley)
(Ross Callon)
(Russ Housley)
(Sam Hartman)
(Ted Hardie)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Bill Fenner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Brian Carpenter Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2006-09-11)
Unknown
Adapted from Gen-ART review by Francis Dupont: - in 3 page 3 I suggest to add "(RFC YYYY)" (as it is done in 4.1 page 3) - in 3 page 3 and in 9.2 page 5 I believe it is "RTP" in place of "RFC" (again 4.1 page 3 seems right) - I'd like to get the name of the I-D for reference [5], BTW it seems to be draft-ietf-avt-ulp
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
David Kessens Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
(was No Record, No Objection)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2006-09-12)
Unknown
Section 3, third paragraph: When FEC data are multiplexed with the original payload stream, the association relationship is indicated as specified in RTP Payload for Redundant Audio Data (RFC 2198) [4]. As an example, such relationship can be indicated as in the generic RFC payload format for FEC [5]. I would like to change this to clear that RFC 2198 is an defined for ULP and not necessarily binding for all future FEC schemes that multiplex data and FEC repair data on the same flow. When FEC data are multiplexed with the original payload stream, the association relationship may for example be indicated as specified in RTP Payload for Redundant Audio Data (RFC 2198) [4]. The generic RFC payload format for FEC [5] uses that method. Section 5: There is a lack of reference in the following: It is recommended that the receiver SHOULD do integrity check on SDP and follow the security considerations of SDP to only trust SDP from trusted sources. Please change that to: It is recommended that the receiver SHOULD do integrity check on SDP and follow the security considerations of SDP [3] to only trust SDP from trusted sources. And move that document into the normative class.
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ross Callon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Sam Hartman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ted Hardie Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown