Offer/Answer Considerations for G723 Annex A and G729 Annex B
RFC 7261
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) Yes
(Richard Barnes; former steering group member) Yes
(Ted Lemon; former steering group member) Yes
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!
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection
(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection
-- 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"
END
Is there really a reason for the rest of the wordiness, which I think actually comes across as confusing?
(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection
(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection
(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection
(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection
(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
- 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.
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection