See below the SDP revi= ew by Christer Holmberg.

Thanks, Christer!=

Authors – can yo= u address the question asked by the reviewer?

Thanks and Regards,

Dan<= /p>

From: mmusic [= mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christer Holmberg
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 1:45 PM
To: mmusic (E-mail)
Cc: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-psi-decodability@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [MMUSIC] SDP directorate review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-= xr-psi-decodability-02

Hi,

I have performed the SDP directorate review of draft= -ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-psi-decodability-02.

As the document only extends the SDP rtcp-xr-attrib = attribute, and refers to RFC 3611 for the associated Offer/Answer procedure= s.

Now, the Offer/Answer procedures in RFC 3611 could R= EALLY use some work, but it is of course not the purpose of this draft to f= ix that :)

However, RFC 3611 does also have a section (5.3) abo= ut non-Offer/Answer usage, but the draft does not say anything about that. = For completeness, should there be a section, referring to RFC 3611 also for= that?

Regards,

Christer

Yes, taking completeness into consideration, Christer=A1=AFs sugg= estion makes sense to me.

We can add a new subsection to say for non-Offer/Answer usage, se= ction 5.3 of RFC3611 applies.

Regards!

-Qin

=B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: xrblock [mailto:xrblo= ck-bounces@ietf.org] =B4=FA=B1=ED = Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
=B7=A2=CB=CD= =CA=B1=BC=E4: 2014=C4=EA4=D4=C2<= span lang=3D"EN-US">23=C8=D5 19:13
=CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: xrblock@ietf.org
=B3=AD=CB=CD: Christer Holmberg
=D6=F7=CC=E2: [xrblock] FW: SDP directorate review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-psi-de= codability-02

See bel= ow the SDP review by Christer Holmberg.

&n= bsp;

Thanks,= Christer!

&n= bsp;

Authors= =A8C can you address the question asked by the reviewer?

&n= bsp;

Thanks = and Regards,

&n= bsp;

Dan

&n= bsp;

From: mmusic [ma= ilto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christer Holmberg
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 1:45 PM
To: mmusic (E-mail)
Cc: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-psi-decodability@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [MMUSIC] SDP directorate review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-= xr-psi-decodability-02

Hi,

I have performed the SDP direct= orate review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-psi-decodability-02.<= /span>

As the document only extends th= e SDP rtcp-xr-attrib attribute, and refers to RFC 3611 for the associated O= ffer/Answer procedures.

Now, the Offer/Answer procedure= s in RFC 3611 could REALLY use some work, but it is of course not the purpo= se of this draft to fix that :)

However, RFC 3611 does also hav= e a section (5.3) about non-Offer/Answer usage, but the draft does not say = anything about that. For completeness, should there be a section, referring= to RFC 3611 also for that?

Regards,

Christer

Hi,

I am preparing the shepherd write-up to submit draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-psi-decodability-03 to the IESG. It would be useful if you can share either on the WG li= st, or in mails to the chairs which will be kept confidential if so you wis= h, whether you have written any early implementations of the I-D, or plan t= o write such implementations soon or after the document becomes an RFC.

Thanks and Regards,

Dan

Hi,

Time has come for requesting meeting slots at IETF-9= 0 (July in Toronto). However, looking at the milestones, we have only two d= ocuments in works that should be completed by July, and two other (WEBRTC-r= elated) that are not WG items. Do we need to meet in Toronto? If you believe so please mention what work ite= ms you suggest for the agenda.

Thanks and Regards,

Dan