Document: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-bv-04.txt
From: Black David
Date: 9 maj 2005 



This draft is basically ready for publication, but has
nits that should be fixed before publication.

I'm not an RTP expert, so I trust that the RTP WG's work on
this draft paid suitable attention to this draft's fit with
the RTP protocol infrastructure.  The draft is well-written
and makes sense to me at the level of my understanding.

I did find one issue that should be attended to:  both
Section 3 and Section 4 include the following two sentences
(indented below):

   The assignment of an RTP payload type for this new packet format is
   outside the scope of this document, and will not be specified here.

Not only is it "outside the scope of this document" ... but
such assignment is prohibited by Section 3 of RFC 3551, and
the IANA registry for such registrations is therefore marked as
Closed.  Both occurrences of the above sentence should be
revised to eliminate any implication that a static RTP type
could be assigned via some means.  

   It is expected that the RTP profile for a particular class of
   applications will assign a payload type for this encoding, or if 
   that is not done then a payload type in the dynamic range shall be 
   chosen.

In light of the previous comment, this sentence could usefully
be strengthened to something like  "It is the responsibility of
the RTP profile ..." .

additionaal note after discussion with the authors:

This is ok - I wasn't aware that this text was RTP "boilerplate"
... now I know, and on that basis, the draft is fine as-is.