RTP Payload Format for MIDI
RFC 6295

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.

(Robert Sparks) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Ralph Droms) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2011-03-01)
No email
send info
Section 1.2

   In this document, the packet bitfields that share a common name often
   have identical semantics.

This left me wondering how I find the cases where they have common names
but different semantics.

(David Harrington) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Comment (2011-03-01 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
  Please add a sentence to the Abstract that indicates that this
  document obsoletes RFC 4695.

(Alexey Melnikov) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Tim Polk) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

Comment (2011-03-02 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
In the IANA Considerations Section: 

> This document does not change any of the registrations in RFC 4695.
Therefore, this document does not require any IANA actions, apart from
updating the references to RFC 4695 to point to this document.

It looks to me that both documents (this one and RFC 4695) need to be referenced in the IANA pages. The reason is that while this document obsolets RFC 4695 it does not carry the text that refers to the creation of the registries. 

(Peter Saint-Andre) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection

Comment (2011-03-01)
No email
send info
#1) Since this is a bis document, I presume it's been used for a while.  Maybe the tense should change in intro to reflect this? Likewise, the original premise of 4965 was to allow musicians to be in different locations but still jam together - did it work?