Colin,
Better late than never, perhaps; some comments on RTP over DCCP.
The draft is clear and really well written which is awesome.
A writing nit: it is generally better not to treat references as nouns;
rather than "RTP over TCP, as defined in [5]," say "RTP over TCP [5]".
But this is not that important.
In Section 5.2, you might point out that a given Service Code may be
specified in many ways. RTP processors should not look for the string
"SC:RTPA", but rather for the corresponding service code value; i.e.,
"SC=1381257281", "SC=x52545041", and "SC:RTPA" are all valid ways to
request that service code. The current text is not explicit about this,
perhaps risking misinterpretation. The example in 5.5 addresses this
but maybe too late. Either something could be added after "Section
8.1.2 of [2]." (e.g.: "Note that a given service code value may be
specified in any of the hex, decimal, and ascii formats; processors MUST
base their behavior on service code values independent of format."), or
the first bullet defining SC:RTPA could be extended to say "(Equivalent
service code definitions include SC=1381257281 and SC=x52545041.)"
As Gorry said, the service code allocations in IANA considerations
should follow the format laid out in RFC4340.
Cool!
Eddie
Colin Perkins wrote:
On 3 May 2007, at 14:34, Phelan, Tom wrote:
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.
I've just submitted draft-ietf-dccp-rtp-06.txt, which incorporates
changes to address all the working group last call comments, except the
keep-alive timer. As I said, I'd prefer to leave the timer as-is, but if
there is consensus to use a larger timer, I'm happy to submit an update
to address that.
