Subject: [Rum] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rum-rue-08.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2021 12:47:57 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Relay User Machine WG of the IETF.

        Title           : Interoperability Profile for Relay User Equipment
        Author          : Brian Rosen
	Filename        : draft-ietf-rum-rue-08.txt
	Pages           : 35
	Date            : 2021-10-01

Abstract:
   Video Relay Service (VRS) is a term used to describe a method by
   which a hearing person can communicate with a deaf, hard of hearing
   or hearing impaired user using an interpreter ("Communications
   Assistant") connected via a videophone to the deaf/HoH user and an
   audio telephone call to the hearing user.  The CA interprets using
   sign language on the videophone link and voice on the telephone link.
   Often the interpreters may be employed by a company or agency termed
   a "provider" in this document.  The provider also provides a video
   service that allows users to connect video devices to their service,
   and subsequently to CAs and other deaf/HoH users.  It is desirable
   that the videophones used by the deaf, hard of hearing or hearing
   impaired user conform to a standard so that any device may be used
   with any provider and that direct video calls between deaf, hard of
   hearing or hearing impaired users work.  This document describes the
   interface between a videophone and a provider.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rum-rue/

There is also an HTML version available at:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-rum-rue-08.html

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-rum-rue-08

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Eugene Christensen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 21:34:14 +0000

Brian,

I believe that the word "voicemail" in section 5 should say "videomail".  Would you agree?

Eugene Christensen

-----Original Message-----
From: Rum <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of [email-masked]
Sent: Friday, October 1, 2021 1:48 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [Rum] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rum-rue-08.txt

[EXTERNAL] 

Abstract:

-- 
Rum mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rum

---

From: Brian Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 17:35:13 -0400

Yeah, ugh.  I will definitely fix that next version.  Sorry.  

Brian

> On Oct 4, 2021, at 5:34 PM, Eugene Christensen <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Brian,
>

---

From: Gunnar Hellström <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2021 17:13:15 +0200

Hi Brian,

rue-08 looks good, but there seems to be a mixup of the new RTT related 
rfc:s RFC 8865 for real-time text in WebRTC data channel, and RFC 9071 
for multiparty update to RTP-based real-time text.

section 6.2 on text, says now:

--------------------------------------

      6.2.<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-rum-rue-08.html#section-6.2>Text-Based
      Communication
      <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-rum-rue-08.html#name-text-based-communication>

Implementations MUST support real-time text ([RFC4102 
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-rum-rue-08.html#RFC4102>]and[RFC4103 
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-rum-rue-08.html#RFC4103>]) 
via T.140 media. One original and two redundant generations MUST be 
transmitted and supported, with a 300 ms transmission interval. 
Implementations MUST support[RFC8865 
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-rum-rue-08.html#RFC8865>]especially 
for emergency calls. Note that RFC4103 is not how real-time text is 
transmitted in WebRTC and some form of transcoder would be required to 
interwork real-time text in the data channel of WebRTC to RFC4103 
real-time text.

Transport of T.140 real-time text in WebRTC is specified in[RFC8865 
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-rum-rue-08.html#RFC8865>], 
using the WebRTC data chanel. RFC 8865 also has some advice on how 
gateways between RFC 4103 and RFC 8865 should operate. It is RECOMMENDED 
that RFC 8865 is used for communication with browser-based WebRTC 
implementations. Implementations MUST support[RFC9071 
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-rum-rue-08.html#RFC9071>].

-------------------change 
proposals------------------------------------------

1. It seems that in the first paragraph," [RFC8865]" should be replaced 
with "[RFC9071]".

2. The last sentence in the second paragraph can possibly be deleted. Or 
did you want to express that also browser based applications must 
support multiparty calling? Multiparty support is specified but not 
required in RFC 8865, so it could be good to replace "It is RECOMMENDED 
that RFC 8865 is used" is extended to ""It is RECOMMENDED that RFC 8865 
including multiparty support is used" in the next-to-last sentence in 
the second paragraph.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regards

Gunnar

-- 
Gunnar Hellström
GHAccess
[email-masked]