Subject: [rtcweb] Review comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-fec-04

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 11:07:29 +0200

Hi,

I have review the -04 version of the FEC. I think the document is mostly 
done. I only have these few comments that should be addressed before 
going forward.

1. Section 4.2:

    Support for redundant encoding MUST be indicated by offering "red" as
    a supported payload type in the offer.

I think it is unclear what "red" refers to here. This as it is not made 
clear that RFC 2198 has the media type audio/red and text/red. I think 
there are two things that would make this clearer. One would be to 
change "red" into media type "audio/red". The other would be to add the 
reference afterwards.

2. Section 12.1:

It is missing this normative reference: [3GPP.26.114]

3. Section 12.1:

I think that the following references have usages in the text that make 
them normative:

[RFC7587] and [RFC4867]

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Media Technologies, Ericsson Research
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                 | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Justin Uberti <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 12:46:23 -0700

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 2:07 AM, Magnus Westerlund <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> done. I only have these few comments that should be addressed before going
> forward.
>
> 1. Section 4.2:
>
> there are two things that would make this clearer. One would be to change
> "red" into media type "audio/red". The other would be to add the reference
> afterwards.

Adding the reference seems like a good idea. With that, the fact that it is
audio/red seems implicit.

https://github.com/juberti/draughts/issues/46

> It is missing this normative reference: [3GPP.26.114]

Agreed. I need to remember how to format such non-IETF references.

https://github.com/juberti/draughts/issues/28

> I think that the following references have usages in the text that make

Agreed.

https://github.com/juberti/draughts/issues/47