Thank you for updating. It make sense to me. Best Regards! -Michael -----邮件原件----- 发件人: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:pkyzivat@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 发送时间: 2019年4月11日 4:25 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 Please see inline. On 4/9/19 11:03 PM, wangzitao wrote: > 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". I changed the naked uses of US-ASCII to reference the US-ASCII subset of UTF-8. I also added another reference to RFC3629 to the *first* use of "US-ASCII subset of UTF-8". I haven't added references to other places with the same usage. > 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. Done. > # 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) I changed these to k=* (obsolete) I have these changes in my working copy for inclusion the next time I submit a revision. Thanks, Paul
