Subject: [avtext] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-avtext-rid-08: (with COMMENT)

From: "Mirja Kuehlewind" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 05:59:41 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-avtext-rid-08: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtext-rid/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

There is one use of normative language but no rfc2119 boilerplate:

"RtpStreamId and RepairedStreamId MUST contain only alphanumeric
characters."

I would actually recommend to add more normative language (and the
boilerplate), e.g.:

" To be clear: the value carried in a RepairedRtpStreamId MUST
   match the RtpStreamId value from another RTP stream in the same
   session.  For example, if a source RTP stream is identified by
   RtpStreamId "A", then any redundancy RTP stream that repairs that
   source RTP stream will contain a RepairedRtpStreamId of "A" (if this
   mechanism is being used to perform such correlation).  These
   redundant RTP streams MAY also contain their own unique RtpStreamId."