Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729-04
review-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729-04-genart-lc-dupont-2013-11-25-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2013-11-27
Requested 2013-10-31
Authors Muthu Arul Perumal , Parthasarathi Ravindran
I-D last updated 2013-11-25
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -04 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -05 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Carl Wallace (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Bert Wijnen (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Francis Dupont
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729 by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 04 (document currently at 06)
Result Ready
Completed 2013-11-25
review-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729-04-genart-lc-dupont-2013-11-25-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

<

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729-04.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20131120
IETF LC End Date: 20131127
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Ready

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:
 - Abstract page 1: usually the Abstract should not reference an RFC
  by its number. IMHO here it is the exception: the I-D will be
  included into the next revision of the RFC.

 - I don't like the annexa/annexb name (nor my spell checker) but
  they are the names used by the RFC...

 - ToC page 2 and 7 page 7: Acknowledgement -> Acknowledgment

 - 1 page 3 (wording suggestion): implied if -> implied when

 - 1 page 3: BTW IMHO "use or preferred" should be interpreted
  as preferred in the offer and use in the answer so the RFC is
  correct. But as you mentioned some implementations didn't follow
  the interpretation so I understand why a clarification new
  document (this I-D) is needed. And of course I fully agree with
  3.1 and 3.2.

 - 7 page 7: Note I checked the spelling of "Harprit S. Chhatwal
  (InnoMedia)" (uncommon for our eyes but correct).

Regards

Francis.Dupont at fdupont.fr