Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) Payload Format for internet Low Bit Rate Codec (iLBC) Speech
draft-ietf-avt-rtp-ilbc-05

[Note]: 'Authors completed revisions and new IPR statement went up (after
some spam filter problems). SG-16 request to modify the fix for bidirectional was not accepted because their requirement
could be met with the approved text.
See comment log.' added by Allison Mankin

[Note]: 'Authors completed revisions and new IPR statement went up (after
some spam filter problems).

SG-16 request to modify the fix for bidirectional was not accepted
because their requirement could be met with the approved text.
See comment log.
' added by Allison Mankin

[Note]: 'Agreement with Chairs to handle as revision - waiting on authors now, who have not responded to Chairs on IESG comments (including unhandled technical AD Review comment - see previous comment).' added by Allison Mankin

[Note]: 'Agreement with Chairs to handle as revision - waiting.

Comments from IESG sent to author, including a reprise of the AD Review comment that SDP mode required to be bidirectional doesn''t work with all cases of offer-answer. 
Authors did not response to this and it needs a response.  This AD Review comment was given in parallel with Last Call as a speedup experiment, and was to be merged with IESG Review.  (AD Review is in tracker).
' added by Allison Mankin

[Note]: 'Comments from IESG sent to author, including a reprise of the AD Review comment that SDP mode required to be bidirectional doesn''t work with all cases of offer-answer.  Authors did not response to this and it needs a response.  This AD Review comment was given in parallel with Last Call as a speedup experiment, and was to be merged with IESG Review.  (AD Review is in tracker).' added by Allison Mankin

[Note]: 'Comments sent to author, including a reprise of the AD Review comment that SDP mode required to be bidirectional doesn''t work with all cases of offer-answer.  Authors did not response to this and it needs a response.  This AD Review comment was given in parallel with Last Call as a speedup experiment, and was to be merged with IESG Review.  (AD Review is in tracker).' added by Allison Mankin

[Ballot comment]
All of these comment are on draft-ietf-avt-ilbc-codec-04.

  1. Wow! This document has a lot of authors.

  2. Needs an IPR Considerations section.  Is Global IP Sound placing the
  algorithm in the public domain?

  3. Nice job on the representation of formulas using ASCII.

  4. I think the security considerations should provide a pointer to SRTP,
  which can be used when confidentiality and integrity are needed.

[Ballot comment]
All of these comment are on draft-ietf-avt-ilbc-codec-04.

  1. Wow! This document has a lot of authors.

  2. Needs an IPR Considerations section.  Is Global IP Sound placing the
  algorithm being placed in the public domain?

  3. Nice job on the representation of formulas using ASCII.

  4. I think the security considerations should provide a pointer to SRTP,
  which can be used when confidentiality and integrity are needed.

[Ballot discuss]
draft-ietf-avt-ilbc-codec has no IPR boilerplate.  Normally, I'd make that a non-blocking comment, but in this case most of the document is C code with its own copyright notice.  It does say "all the provisions of 2026", though, so I'm not sure where that leaves us.

[Ballot discuss]
draft-ietf-avt-ilbc-codec has no IPR boilerplate.  Normally, I'd make that a non-blocking comment, but in this case most of the document is C code with its own copyright notice.  Does our MIB exception apply to something like this?

[Ballot comment]
No ob, but perhaps on the call we could discuss how this fits into the world of  amr/evrc/et al.
The MIME registration indicates the expected use is common, and I see the wg plumped for
experimental (rather than a vnd registration)--is there a community of use already in use,
or expected?

[Ballot comment]
The media type registration in this document says in part:

Optional parameters:
   
  This parameter applies to RTP transfer only.
   
        maxptime:The maximum amount of media which can be 
        ...

I think it would be clearer to have the "This parameter applies" sentence
as part of the description of maxptime.

Nits: No copyright or IPR boilerplate.

[Note]: 'IETF Last Call elicited no comments.  Codec and payload adopted by Cablelabs, even though codec, despite a good number of solicited expert reviews, still held as experiment, being quite new type.' added by Allison Mankin

[Note]: 'Payload normatively cites codec which needs to be Experimental - Alain Duric has agreed (per WG chairs) for payload to be Experimental as well, staying in step with codec. ' added by Allison Mankin

AD Review comments given during Last Call period:

Since the abstract mentions Global IP Sound, it should mention that the codec is fully documented, rather than proprietary, as might be inferred otherwise by someone not familiar with the circumstances.  Same comment about first sentence of Section 2.

SDP -
The discussion of ilbc's 'mode' parameter in sdp (MUST be bi-directional) is not clear, only in part because of grammar issues.  The example states that the reasoning is to ensure that a user on a bandwidth constrained link can ensure that the 30 ms mode is chosen by both sides.  In offer-answer, if the user needing the lower-bandwidth mode is not the initiator, it doesn't matter that the parameter is bi-directional - there will have to be new INVITE.  So this discussion needs to be improved for a major use case.

References -  we will have to investigate whether the codec spec can be a normative reference.  This may be the first test case for draft-ymbk-downref-00.txt (soon to be rev'd).  PS's aren't supposed to be normative on Experimentals.

Officialese - there needs to be some boilerplate at the end -
copyright and IPR declaration.  The needed words are -
"By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with draft-ietf-ipr-submission-rights-08.txt."  [From that draft, Sec. 5.1 - RFC-Ed replaces it - see that draft...] 

and

"Copyright (C) The Internet Society (year). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in RFC XXXX (draft-ietf-ipr-submission-rights-08.txt) and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights." 


Nits: 

Section 3 - figure bellow

Grammar