Telechat Review of draft-ietf-payload-rtp-ttml-03

Request Review of draft-ietf-payload-rtp-ttml
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2019-10-15
Requested 2019-10-09
Authors James Sandford
Draft last updated 2019-10-11
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -02 by Russ Housley (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -03 by Russ Housley (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Russ Housley
State Completed
Review review-ietf-payload-rtp-ttml-03-genart-telechat-housley-2019-10-11
Posted at
Reviewed rev. 03 (document currently at 06)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2019-10-11


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

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

Summary: Ready with Nits

Major Concerns:


Minor Concerns:



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 and, 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?