Forward Error Correction Grouping Semantics in Session Description Protocol
Summary: Needs a YES. Needs 10 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass.
(Cullen Jennings) Yes
Some notes to consider From: "Mark Watson" <email@example.com> > > Hi, > > The following comments rather minor. Sorry for missing the WG last > call: > > 1) Section 3, 3rd para, 1st sentence of third paragraph "When FEC data > are multiplexed with the original payload stream, the association > relationship is indicated as specified in RTP Payload for Redundant > Audio Data (RFC 2198) ." > > I think RFC2198 is just an example here. The point is that in this > case > the relationship between media and FEC is specified within a single > media component of the SDP. I suggest the following re-wording: > > "When FEC data are multiplexed with the original payload stream, the > association relationship is generally indicated within a single media > line, for example as specified in "An RTP Payload for Redundant Audio > Data" (RFC 2198) ." > > 2) Section 3, 3rd para, 2nd sentence, "As an example, such > relationship > can be indicated as in the generic RFC payload format for FEC ." > > I think this should be "This approach is one of the options > described in > "An RTP payload format for generic FEC" ." > > 3) 4.1, 3rd para, 5th line: the reference to  needs to be corrected > (the title is wrong and the RFC YYYY should be removed or replaced > with > the RFC number if it has been allocated). > > 4) 4.2, 2nd para, this paragraph appears to place a "SHOULD" > requirement > on equipment which does not support this draft, which seems rather > paradoxical. If anything, this paragraph should contain informative > text > which repeats the relevant forward-compatibility requirements of SDP > (for the case that the grouping attribute is not supported - > specifically, the attribute is ignored) or of the SDP grouping > mechanism > (for the case that just the FEC semantics are not supported - > specifically, the behaviour in this case appears to be undefined). > > 4) Section 9.2, Reference , the title is wrong >