RTP Payload for Text Conversation
RFC 4103

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.

(Allison Mankin) Yes

(Harald Alvestrand) No Objection

Comment (2004-12-01)
No email
send info
Reviewed by Michael Patton, Gen-ART

His review:

Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication as Proposed
	Standard, but has nits that should be fixed before
	publication.  All of these are in the xcope of what can be
	done in RFC final prep.

While reference [14] is not required to understand the protocol
itself, it's important to the understanding of the "Security
Considerations" and I therefore think that it should be Normative.

[This next one is really almost just a typo, but the one word change
actually changes the meaning, so I put it up front.  I think this is
actually the point the authors are trying to make, since the original
wording seems a non-sequitur to me.]

In the third paragraph of Section 9 is the phrase "this application
will experience very high packet loss rates before it needs to perform
any reduction in the sending rate."  I believe the authors mean that
the application works fine even in the face of large loss rates, but
that's not actually what their chosen words mean, the actual words
imply that something will cause the application to experience higher
loss.  If that's really the intent, I believe that can be fixed by
simply changing the word "will" to "can".  If they meant something
else, more extensive rewording is needed.


Section 1: "in connection to" => "in connection with"

Section 3.1: "are depending on" => "are dependent on"

(Margaret Cullen) No Objection

(Bill Fenner) No Objection

(Sam Hartman) No Objection

(Scott Hollenbeck) No Objection

Comment (2004-11-24)
No email
send info
Two-week MIME type review period for text/t140 ends on 2 December.  Please confirm that no issues are identified (none have been raised so far).

(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Thomas Narten) No Objection

(Bert Wijnen) No Objection

Comment (2004-12-01)
No email
send info
I see mixed use of "T140block" and "T.140block" 
Are they not the same? If so, maybe a consistent notation 
would be better. Same for "T140" and "T.140"

*** matchref -- match citations and references.
    Input file: draft-ietf-avt-rfc2793bis-09.txt

!! Missing citation for Normative reference:
  P017 L056:    [12] Postel, J.,"Internet Protocol", RFC 791, 1981.

!! Missing citation for Informative reference:
  P018 L015:    [15] Schulzrinne, H., Petrack, S., "RTP Payload for DTMF Digits,

(Alex Zinin) No Objection