Offer/Answer Considerations for G723 Annex A and G729 Annex B
RFC 7261

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

(Richard Barnes) Yes

(Gonzalo Camarillo) Yes

(Ted Lemon) Yes

Comment (2014-02-19 for -05)
No email
send info
The abstract would read better (IMHO) if you used the same terminology as in the title of the draft:

   This document provides the offer/answer considerations for the G723 
   Annex A and the G729, G729D and G729E Annex B parameter
   when the value of the Annex A or Annex B parameter does not match in
   the Session Description protocol (SDP) offer and answer.

It's good to see this work happening—thanks for doing it!

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Comment (2014-02-17 for -05)
No email
send info
- I think a reference to RFC 6562 in the security
considerations would be useful. 

- Based on 6562, I also wondered if it'd really be
better for the defaults to be turned around from
missing==yes to missing==no? Even if that's not
feasible, were it desirable, it'd be worth noting.

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Barry Leiba No Objection

Comment (2014-02-17 for -05)
No email
send info
-- Section 3 --

This came at me from out of the blue when I read it.  What does it have to do with Annex A or Annex B?  You talk about comfort noise frames in here, without any other mention of them in the document.  What is Section 3 here for?

-- Sections 3.1 and 3.2 --

This is purely an editorial point -- I think you're saying, technically, what you need to say -- but I find these two sections to be rather convoluted.  I think, for example, this specifies the same thing, more clearly and concisely:

NEW (Section 3.1)
When a G723 offer or answer lacks an "annexa" parameter, "annexa=yes" is implied.

When a G723 offer and its corresponding answer both specify or imply "annexa=yes", then G723 is negotiated with "annexa=yes".

Otherwise ("annexa=no" is specified in either or both of the offer and answer), then G723 is negotiated with "annexa=no"

Is there really a reason for the rest of the wordiness, which I think actually comes across as confusing?

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection