Last Call Review of draft-ietf-clue-rtp-mapping-10
review-ietf-clue-rtp-mapping-10-opsdir-lc-schoenwaelder-2017-01-03-00
| 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 | |
| Draft 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 | |
| Review |
review-ietf-clue-rtp-mapping-10-opsdir-lc-schoenwaelder-2017-01-03
|
|
| Reviewed revision | 10 (document currently at 14) | |
| Result | Has Nits | |
| Completed | 2017-01-03 |
review-ietf-clue-rtp-mapping-10-opsdir-lc-schoenwaelder-2017-01-03-00
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 character) - 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 'roni.even@mail01.huawei.com' is a long term stable identifier for the 'Contact' field of the RTP SDES Compact Header Extensions subregistry? - 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