Hi Paul, Please find my comments at [MW]. B.R. -Michael -----邮件原件----- 发件人: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:pkyzivat@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 发送时间: 2019年4月10日 1:11 收件人: wangzitao <wangzitao@xxxxxxxxxx>; ops-dir@xxxxxxxx 抄送: ietf@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis.all@xxxxxxxx; mmusic@xxxxxxxx 主题: Re: [MMUSIC] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis-34 Thank you for the comments. I have some questions: On 4/8/19 2:37 AM, Zitao Wang via Datatracker wrote: > Reviewer: Zitao Wang > Review result: Has Issues > > Summary: This memo defines the Session Description Protocol (SDP). SDP is > intended for describing multimedia sessions for the purposes of > session announcement, session invitation, and other forms of > multimedia session initiation. This document obsoletes RFC 4566. I > think the document make sense and is written very clear, except some small nits: > # In Section 5, there are > several terms that miss references, such as "US-ASCII subset of > UTF-8", "ASN.1 or XDR", etc. There is already a reference to the definition of UTF-8 [RFC3629] in section 4.5. Do you think the reference needs to be included with every use? The US-ASCII subset of UTF-8 is also defined in RFC3629, so I am inclined to use the same reference for that. There are also a couple of uses of US-ASCII without mention of UTF-8. I'm inclined to change those to "the US-ASCII subset of UTF-8". Regarding ASN.1 and XDR, I can add references if you think it important. But their use is very peripheral, and it isn't necessary to know what they are to read the text. [MW]: I am OK if it is not commonly used. # s/session- specific/session-specific/ Regarding "session- specific" vs. "session-specific": The context for this is: "Attribute scopes in addition to media- and session- specific may also..." The space was intentional so that there are equivalent constructions for "media" and "session". The intent is as a shorthand for: "Attribute scopes in addition to media-specific and session-specific may also..." To avoid confusion I think I'll just change to the latter. [MW]: I agree. # Suggest to add tags on > "overview optional items" to identified now-obsolete items, such as > "a=cat", "a=keywds", "k=". I'm not clear what you want me to do. I guess you are suggesting adding something to the first figure in section 5. [MW]: Yes, IMO, adding some tag/description to the figure is better. I don't see how that would be possible for a=cat and a=keywds, since the figure doesn't mention individual attributes. [MW]: Agree. For a=cat and a=keywds, it is difficult to show on the figure. While it is possible to add something for k=, IMO it is better to leave that level of detail to the complete description in section 5.12. [MW]: Maybe it can be updated as following: Before : k=* (encryption key) After: k=* (encryption key, this line is obsoleted) Thanks, Paul Kyzivat
