Russ, thanks for your reviews of this document. James, thanks for incorporating updates based on Russ’s prior review. I don’t have strong feelings about either of Russ’s points below but it would be good to get a response. I entered a No Objection ballot.
Alissa > On Oct 11, 2019, at 1:40 PM, Russ Housley via Datatracker <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Reviewer: Russ Housley > Review result: Ready with Nits > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-payload-rtp-ttml-03 > Reviewer: Russ Housley > Review Date: 2019-10-11 > IETF LC End Date: 2019-10-10 > IESG Telechat date: 2019-10-17 > > > Thank you for addressing my comments on the previous version of this > Internet-Draft. > > > Summary: Ready with Nits > > Major Concerns: > > None. > > > Minor Concerns: > > None. > > > Nits: > > My guess is that the second paragraph in Section 7.1 uses "should" > because it is asking implementors to think about these things when > selecting a clock rate. I expected this section to be talking about > the payload format parameters, not implementation considerations. I > am not sure, but this paragraph might be more impactful elsewhere. > > In section 4.2.1.1 and 4.2.1.2.1.2, should the blocks of XML be > enclosed between '<CODE BEGINS>' and '<CODE ENDS>' lines to make it > very clear that the Simplified BSD License applies here? > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
