Framework for Transcoding with the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
draft-ietf-sipping-transc-framework-05
Yes
(Jon Peterson)
No Objection
(Cullen Jennings)
(David Kessens)
(Jari Arkko)
(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.
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Brian Carpenter Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2006-08-02)
Unknown
From Gen-ART review by Michael Patton: ...if the document is being changed due to some other issues, the editors might consider these changes as well. Minor comments -------------- I do not believe that all the Normative references are, in fact, Normative. In particular, [1] and [8] are only referenced in a "for example ... could be used" style, which is clearly only Informative. There is a transcoding case that I think might be a useful example, but doesn't appear anywhere in the document. If there is a rewrite, you may wish to mention it somewhere for additional support. Perhaps in the introduction. The case I'm thinking of is where the two ends do not support a common bandwidth, perhaps one end only supports high quality (and therefore high bandwidth) video, but the other end is bandwidth constrained and requires a different encoding with lower BW requirements. For most combinations like this, it would be possible to have a transcoder that solves the mismatch. It might even be offered as a standard option at the ingress to the lower BW portion of the network. I note that this document along with references [10] and [11] actually forms a loosely coupled set, where I understand this document is an informational overview and the other two are details of the two approaches. I applaud this approach, if that's what is intended, but would like to see that relationship described in this document. Once again, a suggestion for better clarity, but not worth holding up the document if nothing else is being changed. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The following editorial issues are noted for the convenience of possible copy editors but are not part of the technical review. Clarity ------- In Section 3 very near the top of Page 5, you have a reference for 3pcc to reference [7]. Would it also be productive to reference [10] as well there? Also, that paragraph has no reference for the bridge model. Should [11] be referenced? Typos ----- Section 3.1: "This model also allows to invoke" => "This model also allows invoking"
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
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
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
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
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