Document: draft-ietf-mmusic-anat-01
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Date: July 18, 2004

I think it's ready for proposed standard, with 2 points which might be
worth discussing, but might not be.  I would be inclined to let them go:

- idnits says they re-flowed the IPR statement at the end.  Buh.  Maybe
  I just need a newer version of idnits (I'm doing this on an airplane).

- I understand Scott Hollenbeck's comment about Section 4.  The text
  isn't exactly wrong, it just takes shortcuts.

  Scott Hollenbeck's comment: "It looks like either the text or the
  example in section 4 is broken.  The text says "In the example below,
  the m= line with mid=1 has a higher preference than the m line with
  mid=2", but the example given is "a=group:ANAT 1 2"."

  The complete example in Section 6 looks like:

      v=0
      o=bob 280744730 28977631 IN IP4 host.example.com
      s=
      t=0 0
      a=group:ANAT 1 2
      m=audio 6886 RTP/AVP 0
      c=IN IP6 2001:0600::1
      a=mid:1
      m=audio 22334 RTP/AVP 0
      c=IN IP4 192.0.2.2
      a=mid:2

  m= lines don't have mid=, a= lines do.  What Section 4 really means --
  I think -- is that the m= line whose associated a= line has mid=1 has
  a higher preference than the m= line whose associated a= line has
  mid=2.  Anyone who knows SDP will probably know what the current text
  means.  Is it a problem that those who don't won't?  Can you say it
  more accurately yet succinctly?