Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-clue-rtp-mapping-10

Request Review of draft-ietf-clue-rtp-mapping
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 14)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2017-01-12
Requested 2016-12-22
Authors Roni Even , Jonathan Lennox
I-D last updated 2017-01-03
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -10 by Vijay K. Gurbani (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -10 by Jürgen Schönwälder (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -10 by Dan Harkins (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Jürgen Schönwälder
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-clue-rtp-mapping by Ops Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 10 (document currently at 14)
Result Has nits
Completed 2017-01-03
I do not see any major OPS related issues. While reading the document,
I found a number of things the authors should look into:

- Consider to expand SDP and perhaps CLUE in the abstract

- Having both CaptureId and CaptureID in 5.1 is a bit confusing (since
  the two identifiers only differ by the capitalization of the last

- Both nXML mode in emacs and xmlint indicate that the xml in section
  6 is invalid. Please check. (It could also be an issue with my tools
  and the namespaces but then also the indentation looks at least
  somewhat surprising.

- Is the RFC editor expected to	replace XX in the drawing in section
  5.1 with the value assigned for TBA? If so, I think this needs to be
  documented somewhere.

- Is '' is a long term stable identifier
  for the 'Contact' field of the RTP SDES Compact Header Extensions

- Security considerations, last	paragraph: What	is 'a lot of trust'?
  Why is the SHOULD not	a MUST?

- s/CaptureIDis/CaptureID is/g

- According to idnits, there are RFCs listed in the references that
  are not cited in the text; please pay attention to idnits reports