Request for media type review of video/h263-1998 and
magnus.westerlund at ericsson.com
Wed Nov 30 10:05:04 CET 2005
Martin for the review. Sorry about the version mix up. For a diff
between the version 6 and 7:
Please see comments inline.
Martin Duerst wrote:
> Both types say:
> Encoding considerations:
> This type is only defined for transfer via RTP [RFC3550]
> 'Encoding considerations' should mention how characters are encoded.
> If these types don't contain character data, just say so. If they
> do, say how that character data is encoded, or point to where this
> is described.
In the correct version -07 this is now changed to:
This media type is framed and binary, see section 4.8 in[I-
> Also, it says:
> Security considerations: See Section 10
> This should be changed to "Section 10 of RFC????", to make the
> registration template self-contained at least in form. Ideally,
> that stuff would be in the template, at least in a shortened form,
> because people often do not follow references.
Okay, we can fix this. I haven't been that hard on this due to how the
registry is currently structured. If one goes to IANA the reference
points to the whole RFC. Thus one get both the template and the complete
document in which it is included. But I will ask the author to fix this
when the WGLC is over.
> Also, in the first type, the parameter section is really long.
> It may be better to take out some of that material and put it
> in the actual spec, because it looks more like spec stuff than
> like registration stuff.
As the media type template is part of the actual specification, we
define the parameters fully within the template. I don't see any gain by
moving them outside of the template, simply more hassle for the authors.
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A
Ericsson AB | Phone +46 8 4048287
Torshamsgatan 23 | Fax +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund at ericsson.com
More information about the Ietf-types