Hi Mykyta, Thanks for the review. See inline for response. Mykyta Yevstifeyev skrev 2011-04-28 19:22: > Hello, > > Some comments on this document, currently in Last Call. > >> Network Working Group M. Westerlund >> Internet-Draft Ericsson >> Updates: 5245 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5245> (if approved) C. Perkins >> Intended status: Standards Track University of Glasgow >> Expires: September 29, 2011 March 28, 2011 > I don't see why the intended status for this document is Standards > Track. Wouldn't Informational be enough? Could you please justify why > have you chosen it? I don't think we have put much thought into it. But one reason I can think of is to have it on the same maturity level as the ICE specification itself. Thus enabling a merge of this registry into an update of RFC 5245 without forcing it to be recycled as proposed. > > Your registry description does not mention what is the precise name of > the registry. While everybody understands that is sands for ICE > options, it would be useful to give IANA distinctive guidelines on its > name (this is also required in RFC5226, Section 4.2, 1) in the list; > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226#section-4.2). Yes, I agree that it should be included in Section 3.1 of our document rather than only in the title which says "Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) Options" > > From RFC 5226, also Section 4.2: > >> 5) Initial assignments and reservations. Clear instructions >> should be provided to identify any initial assignments or >> registrations. In addition, any ranges that are to be reserved >> for "Private Use", "Reserved", "Unassigned", etc. should be >> clearly indicated. > > Are there any initial assignments? Your document mentions one option; > shouldn't it be registered? No, because when draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-ecn gets published that will actually do the registration. As that document isn't approved yet and in fact still not WG last called this registry will first be created empty and then populated. > >> A registration request MUST include the following information: >> >> [ . . . ] > Shall this be mentioned as a registration template? It isn't written as one. It is a list of what needs to be present in the registration. And I think a template would be more focused on what needs to the general categories rather than the information. Thus I don't want this as registration template. > >> o Email and Address of the Contact person > I think you should add the name of the contact person to the name of > this field as well. As the two first bullets are: o Name of contact person for the registration o Email and Address of the Contact person I don't quite understand your comment. Do you want us to merge the two entries? This as the contact persons will need to provide name, email and address. I am fine with merging them and this is likely a slight improvement. Cheers Magnus Westerlund ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ericsson AB | Phone +46 10 7148287 Färögatan 6 | Mobile +46 73 0949079 SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@xxxxxxxxxxxx ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf