Responses prefixed with [PEY] below. Kind regards, -Peter -----Original Message----- From: Gunnar Hellström [mailto:gunnar.hellstrom@xxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Friday, May 07, 2021 11:36 AM To: Peter Yee; gen-art@xxxxxxxx Cc: avt@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-mix.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-mix-14 Continuing with comments and edit proposals from "Nits/editorial comments:" below. Den 2021-05-06 kl. 05:41, skrev Peter Yee via Datatracker: > Reviewer: Peter Yee > Review result: Ready with Issues > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > For more information, please see the FAQ at > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > Document: draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-mix-14 > Reviewer: Peter Yee > Review Date: 2021-05-05 > IETF LC End Date: 2021-05-03 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > Summary: This draft specifies updates to RFC 4103 to allow real-time text > mixing for both multiparty-aware and multiparty-unaware participants. It has > some minor issues that should be addressed before publication. [Ready with > issues] > Nits/editorial comments: > Change “multiparty capable” to “multiparty-capable” throughout the document. [GH] I suggest to change to "multiparty-aware" instead for consistency. [PEY] Fine by me. > Page 6, section 1.1, 2nd paragraph: insert “are” before “as”. [GH] Recently changed to just "are defined in" by proposal in another review. I suggest to keep that. [PEY] Agreed. > Page 6, “multiparty-unaware”: change “stands for” to “describes”. [GH] Accepted and done.Your use of hyphen in "multiparty-unaware" made me understand that that term also should be hyphenated all through the document. Done. [PEY] Yes, I failed to include that hyphenation in the general nits although I marked all of them in my review copy. > Page 29, “BOM”, 1st sentence: insert “it” before “SHALL”. [GH] Accepted, but part of the first statement is separated out to a sentence of its own: " It SHALL be deleted from incoming streams." [PEY] That's fine. I didn't fuss so much over sentence structure for the definitions. > Page 32, section 6.1, title: drop the “e.g.” in the subsection title. [GH] Not done. Many countries have their own terms for textphones. In USA and a few other countries (Canada, Australia) they are called TTY. That term is not understood in other countries. "Textphone" may not be understood in USA. Therefore I prefer having both the general term and the (e.g., TTYs) in the heading. [PEY] With that understanding, I'm fine leaving an examples or two in the body text. As a matter of style, I don't think examples should appear in the title, but I won't argue the point. It's only style. :-) > Page 32, section 6.1, 2nd paragraph, parenthetical: perhaps you want “i.e.,” > instead of “e.g.” here given that further down you put “TTYS” in another > parenthetical as though it weren’t just an example but the only exemplar of > this type of device under discussion. [GH] No. I did not mean "i.e.,". "TTY" is just one example with specific technology. So, I suggest to keep this sentence: "One case that may occur is a gateway to PSTN for communication with textphones (e.g., TTYs)." While in the other places where (TTY) was mentioned it is deleted with its parenthesis. [PEY] Okay. > Page 32, section 6.1, 2nd paragraph, last sentence: delete “make”. Change > “adaptions” to “adapt”. Delete “for” before “the functional”. Delete “(TTY)”. [GH] I also needed to insert "to" before "adapt" to make: "This solution makes it possible to adapt to the functional limitations of the textphone." [PEY] I'm fine with the that sentence. Thanks again for the thorough review. I have next version ready, also including changed caused by security comments and discussed in other mail. Do you want me to submit the new version. [PEY] If you have no further changes pending from other reviews, it probably makes sense to submit a new version with everything incorporated. I admit that I didn't thoroughly check the diffs between -14 and -16 to see if any of my proposed changes clashed. Regards Gunnar -- Gunnar Hellström GHAccess gunnar.hellstrom@xxxxxxxxxxx -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
