Document: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-uemclip-04
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: Feb. 6, 2009
IESG Telechat date: Unknown

Summary: The draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.

Major issues: 1 (see below)
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments: 2 (see below)

Major issue: This is a very well-written draft, complete with SDP examples.  The one major comment I have is in S6.3.1.  More specifically, the list of guidelines provided are not "additional guidelines for establishing a session using an offer-answer model" as much as they are guidelines for using the UEMCLIP format in SDP.  In other words, the bullet list is not changing how offer-answer works (and it cannot, obviously); but it is providing better semantics on how to handle offer-answer exchanges
*containing* UEMCLIP format.  Does that make sense?

The modified text can be as simple as (note the spelling mistake correction on "Followings"):

OLD:
    Followings are additional guidelines for establishing a session using
    an offer-answer model.

NEW:
    The following is a detailed list on the semantics of using
    the UEMCLIP payload format in an offer-answer exchange:

Nits/Editorials:
1/ In S1, second paragraph:
   s/switched using SDP exchange./changed using an SDP exchange./

2/ In S2, first paragraph:
   s/shift to the wideband./shift to using wideband communication./