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
