Subject: [rtcweb] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio-10: (with COMMENT)

From: "Alexey Melnikov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 05:56:24 -0700

Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio-10: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In Section 5: AEC is a SHOULD implement with no reference. Is this well
understood to be implementable without any reference?

In section 8: acronym VBR is used for the first time without explanation.

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 07:44:21 +0200

I believe the concept of AEC (echo cancellation) is sufficiently well
understood that it can be implemented without a reference.

Specific echo cancellation algorithms are typically quite fluid and/or
proprietary; I do not believe that the Internet would benefit from
referencing any single AEC algorithm.
Two endpoints do not need to agree on an AEC algorithm to function.

> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 08:30:59 +0100

Hi Harald,

> On 18 Apr 2016, at 06:44, Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Ok, fair enough.

It would be good to expand the acronym for ignorant people like me though.

---

From: Martin J. Dürst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 16:46:51 +0900

> It would be good to expand the acronym for ignorant people like me though.

I wanted to make exactly the same comment, but then I checked, and the 
expansion is given in the TOC and the title of section 5 (the only place 
where the acronym is used without expansion), so it might be good enough.

Regards,   Martin.

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 09:45:32 +0100

> On 18 Apr 2016, at 08:46, Martin J. Dürst <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> I wanted to make exactly the same comment, but then I checked, and the expansion is given in the TOC and the title of section 5 (the only place where the acronym is used without expansion), so it might be good enough.

Ok. RFC Editor is quite good at fixing these anyway.