Hi Colin, After a careful reread of dccp-rtp, here are my comments. Modulo these pretty nitty comments, I support the draft. There are a couple of places where you use lower-case "should" where maybe you mean "SHOULD", or some other word would be clearer: In section 2.1, "an application should use either a rate adaptive payload format...". I think here "could" would be better than "should" -- I don't think you're trying to restrict how this is handled, just suggest. Section 4.2, last paragraph, "an application should use either RTCP feedback or DCCP acknowledgements, but not both". Should this be SHOULD? Section 4.4, first sentence, "An end system should not assume that it will observe only a single RTP synchronisation source". Should this be SHOULD NOT? It is when you reiterate this in the last sentence of the paragraph. Section 5.2, "The service code should be interpreted as defined in Section 8.1.2 of" DCCP. Maybe I'm just confused by being on a "should" vs. "SHOULD" track here, but maybe "The service code is interpreted as defined in Section 8.1.2" is better? Editorial Nits: Title -- expand RTP. Section 2: Rationale -- You say "Two approaches...", next paragraph is "1)", but there's no "2)" (you say "The other approach is" instead). Either "1)" and "2)", or "The first" and "The other" (or second), I think. Tom P. -----Original Message----- From: Phelan, Tom Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 9:35 AM To: dccp@xxxxxxxx Subject: WG Last Call for RTP over DCCP draft Hi All, This is to announce the beginning of a working group last call for draft-ietf-dccp-rtp-05.txt, "RTP and the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)" (available at http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dccp-rtp-05.txt. Last call will end on 18-May (two weeks from now rounded to Friday). In addition to commenting on issues in the draft, if you support it as it is, please say so. Thanks, Tom Phelan DCCP co-chair PS. Colin -- one nit comment I see as I prepare this e-mail -- you apparently felt the need to expand the DCCP acronym in the title, but not RTP. I guess that shows where your familiarity lies :-). At any rate, I recall some long-past discussion about how all acronyms in titles should be expanded...
