Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-scip-02
review-ietf-avtcore-rtp-scip-02-artart-early-fenton-2022-10-10-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-scip
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 04)
Type Early Review
Team ART Area Review Team (artart)
Deadline 2022-10-15
Requested 2022-10-07
Requested by Barry Leiba
Authors Daniel Hanson , MikeFaller , Keith Maver
Draft last updated 2022-10-10
Completed reviews Secdir Early review of -02 by Magnus Nystrom (diff)
Genart Early review of -01 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Artart Early review of -01 by Jim Fenton (diff)
Artart Early review of -02 by Jim Fenton (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -04 by Olivier Bonaventure
Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Dan Romascanu
Assignment Reviewer Jim Fenton
State Completed
Review review-ietf-avtcore-rtp-scip-02-artart-early-fenton-2022-10-10
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/HjMttUhTSLuOJZvrvALfHHbAl90
Reviewed revision 02 (document currently at 04)
Result Ready with Issues
Completed 2022-10-10
review-ietf-avtcore-rtp-scip-02-artart-early-fenton-2022-10-10-00
I am the designated ARTART reviewer for this early review of
draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-scip-02. I requested assignment to this re-review since
many of the concerns in my earlier review have been addressed.

The abstract and introduction still provide somewhat different motivations for
this document. Through correspondence with the authors, it appears that a
primary goal (perhaps the primary goal) is to provide RFC 6838 compliant media
subtype definitions as mentioned in the abstract. This same goal should be
expressed in the body of the document, perhaps the introduction.

I share other reviewers' concerns about whether the reference to SCIP-210,
which is not generally available, is normative or informative. I understand
that it is the consensus of the WG that the reference is informative, although
I'm not sure this is really a WG consensus decision. However, if this document
exists primarily to provide information needed for media type registration (as
opposed to implementation), perhaps that leans more in the direction of an
informative reference. I will leave that to others who have more experience
with media subtype registrations and normative/informative distinctions.