Charles, Looks pretty good to me. Thanks for considering my suggestions. Kind regards, -Peter >-----Original Message----- >From: Charles Eckel (eckelcu) [mailto:eckelcu@xxxxxxxxx] >Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 4:24 PM >To: Peter Yee; draft-ietf-siprec-protocol.all@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >Cc: gen-art@xxxxxxxx; IETF Discussion Mailing List >Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-siprec-protocol-16 > >Hi Peter, > >Thanks for your detailed review and great comments. I¹ve added proposed >resolutions inline. > >On 5/16/15, 4:16 AM, "Peter Yee" <peter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on >>Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at >><http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq> >> >>Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments >>you may receive. >> >> >>Document: draft-ietf-siprec-protocol-16 >>Reviewer: Peter Yee >>Review Date: May-15-2015 >>IETF LC End Date: May-15-2015 >>IESG Telechat date: TBD >> >>Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed >>standard but has open issues, described in the review. [Ready with >>issues] >> >>The draft specifies entities and a protocol using SIP, SDP, and RTP for >>recording communication sessions. It provides the ability to notify >>UAs that they are being recorded and for UAs to notify the recording >>system of their recording preference. >> >>The document is well written and has no obvious major technical issues. >> >> >>Major issues: None >> >>Minor issues: >> >> >>Page 21, section 8.1.4, last sentence: what does “appropriately". >>Specify where is the appropriate interpretation defined or provide it >>here. > >I propose replacing >"interpret the CSRC list appropriately when received." with "interpret the >CSRC list per RFC 3550 when received." That seems like a helpful clarification. >>Nits: >> >>NB: Anything below marked with an asterisk before the line is a >>technical change; the rest are purely editorial and of lesser importance. > >Lots of good catches here and all suggested changes made with the few >exceptions noted inline. > >>Page 15, section 7.2, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: Would this sentence >>be more correct if rewritten for clarity as: "When the SRS is ready to >>receive recorded streams, the SRS sends a new SDP offer and sets the >>a=recvonly attribute in the media streams.²? > >I think either construction gets the point across. It left as is in order >to >be consistent with the structure of the previous sentence. Okay. >>Page 33, last paragraph, 2nd sentence: Why not state this in the >>affirmative: ³Any subsequent partial updates will only be dependent on >>the metadata sent in this full metadata snapshot and any intervening >>partial updates.² > >I find the current construction to be simpler. As you wish. :-) >Thanks so much, >Charles