Hi Paul, Thanks for your review! Please see inline.
(1) Nit: >Regarding the following in section 5.1: > > When an offerer or answerer indicates that it wants to establish a > new DTLS association, it needs to make sure that media packets in the > existing DTLS association and new DTLS association can be de- > multiplexed. > >This text presumes there is an existing association. To explicitly cover the >case where there is not, I suggest the following: > > When an offerer or answerer indicates that it wants to establish a > new DTLS association to replace an existing association, it needs to > ensure that media packets in the existing DTLS association and new > DTLS association can be de-multiplexed. I could do that. Or, I could use say "make sure that media packets in *any* existing DTLS association" >Later in the section there is a language error is the following: > > The certificate received during the DTLS handshake MUST match a > certificate fingerprints received in SDP 'fingerprint' attributes > according to the procedures defined in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-4572-update]. > >s/match a/match the/ > >OR > >s/certificate fingerprints/certificate fingerprint/ That was the intention, so I will fix it (s/certificate fingerprints/certificate fingerprint/). (2) Nit: >In Section 5.4 there is again a presumption of an existing association in the >following: > > If the answer does not establish a new DTLS association, the offerer > will continue using the previously established DTLS association. > >To fix, I suggest: > > If the offer indicated a desire to reuse an existing DTLS association > and the answer does not request establishment of a new DTLS > association, the offerer will continue using the previously > established DTLS association. I will fix as suggested. (3) Minor: >I concur with the comments in the ops-dir review by Carlos Pignataro regarding >the formatting of >section 9. He didn't suggest a fix. Perhaps some special marker (e.g. "|" or >"<" and ">") can be placed >in every line to indicate it is test from or for another document - either at >the beginning or end of every line. I have never seen that been used before - not in documents I have authored, or in documents written by others. (4) Nit: >In Section 9: > >The following text is repeated multiple times: > > [RFC EDITOR NOTE: Please replace RFCXXXX with the RFC number > of this document.] > >It would be sufficient and less distracting to the user to simply state this >once for the entire document. I will fix as suggested. Regards, Christer _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
