Subject: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs-17

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 17:04:29 -0600

I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for
this draft (for background on appsdir, please see ​
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate ).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs-17
Title: Session Description Protocol (SDP) Extension For Setting Up
  Audio and Video Media Streams Over Circuit-Switched Bearers In The
  Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN)
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: Feb-11-2013
IETF Last Call Date: Not known
IESG Telechat Date: Not known

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.
A few issues that should be looked at before publication are listed
below.

Major Issues: 0

Minor Issues: 3

Nits: 2

Minor:
-----
- S5.2.1: SDP syntax is c=<nettype> <addrtype> <connection-address>.
  Towards the bottom of S5.2.1, it is said that "When the <addrtype> is
  PSTN ...".  Should it not be "When the <nettype> is PSTN ..."?

- S5.2.1, towards the end it says that when the <addrtype> is "-", the
  <connection-address> may be "any syntactically valid value, which is
  to  be ignored".  A couple of points on this: one, I am left puzzling
  what is the syntactically correct value here, and secondly, if the
  value is  to be ignored, why bother that it is syntactically correct?
  My advice would be to reword the bullet item as follows:

    any value resulting from the production rule of connection-address
    in RFC4566 [RFC4566], but in all cases any value encountered will
    be ignored.

- S5.2.3.1, second paragraph: there appears to be a spurious ">" in
  "Section 5.7> defined the formal syntax.".  Plus, you probably want to
  say "Section 5.7 defines the formal syntax."  The last sentence of the
  sub-section is redundant to this one.  Perhaps you can take this
  sentence out and let the last one remain.

Nits:
-----
- S6.1, Figure 3 and 4: In Figure 4, better to
  s/o=jdoe/o=alice/ to make the intent conform better to Figure 3.
  Alice is the originator of the call.

  Ditto for Figures 6 and 7.

- S7, second paragraph: s/wellknown/well known/

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / [email-masked]
Web:   http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 07:22:33 +0000

Hello Vijay,

Thank you for your review. Please find my responses inline [SV].

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Vijay K. Gurbani [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 12. helmikuuta 2013 1:04
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; IESG IESG; [email-masked]
Subject: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs-17

I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for this draft (for background on appsdir, please see ​ http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate ).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.
A few issues that should be looked at before publication are listed below.

Major Issues: 0

Minor Issues: 3

Nits: 2

Minor:
-----

[SV] Actually, it should read "When the <addrtype> is E164..."

[SV] The purpose is that parsers will accept the value passed in the <connection-address> field, but that value is actually not used for anything by the application. How about modifying the proposed text a bit to read:

    any value resulting from the production rule of connection-address
    in RFC4566 [RFC4566], but in all cases this value will be ignored.

[SV] Agreed, deleted the first sentence.

Nits:
-----

[SV] Done.

[SV] Done.

Regards,
Simo

Thanks,

- vijay

---

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 12:26:57 -0600

> Thank you for your review. Please find my responses inline [SV].
[...]

Simo: Thank you for addressing my review comments; I do not have
any further comments on the draft.

Have a nice day!

- vijay