Re: [AVTCORE] Pete Resnick's Discuss on draft-ietf-avtcore-srtp-vbr-audio-03: (with DISCUSS)

[Colin Perkins <[e-mail]>]

I don't care either way. Standards track is fine.
Colin

On 17 Nov 2011, at 17:03, Ali C. Begen (abegen) wrote:

> I looked at the document before the last call and my impression is that standards track is more appropriate as well. 
> 
> -acbegen
> 
> On Nov 17, 2011, at 4:49 PM, "Magnus Westerlund" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> WG,
>> 
>> There has been no responses to this topic. If you are fine with this, I
>> still would appreciate a few responses to indicate that you are fine
>> with going to standards track.
>> 
>> My individual view is that there are no issue and appear appropriate.
>> This is something the WG chairs should have considered before requesting
>> the publication.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> 
>> Magnus
>> 
>> On 2011-11-01 23:50, Robert Sparks wrote:
>>> AVTCORE Working Group:
>>> 
>>> Pete is making an argument that the text in this document could be
>>> published as Standards Track. We've walked through the normative
>>> statements in the document together and I see his argument. My only
>>> concern is whether there is any intent in the document to tell
>>> operators of existing deployments to go change their configuration
>>> right away to avoid the security issues the document describes. Pete
>>> rightly points out that, as written, the document is providing
>>> guidance to new implementers, not to current operators.
>>> 
>>> Does anyone believe moving this to the Standards Track is the wrong
>>> thing to do? Do you think the document needs to say anything more
>>> strongly about current deployments?
>>> 
>>> RjS
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Oct 31, 2011, at 8:28 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Pete Resnick has entered the following ballot position for 
>>>> draft-ietf-avtcore-srtp-vbr-audio-03: Discuss
>>>> 
>>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to
>>>> all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to
>>>> cut this introductory paragraph, however.)
>>>> 
>>>> Please refer to
>>>> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more
>>>> information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> DISCUSS:
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> I don't see how this is remotely a BCP. This should be on the standards
>> track. It is specifying all sorts of implementation parameters that are
>> clearly testable, may have interoperability implications, and may change
>> over time as we get implementation experience. (E.g., the length of the
>> overhang period may be something that we specify differently, whether
>> VAD is used or not may have interoperability implications, etc.). This
>> discussion would have normally happened in the context of a security
>> considerations section of a base protocol document and would have gone
>> along the standards track with the base protocol. The fact that it is
>> being published separately shouldn't change its treatment.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport
>>> Core Maintenance [e-mail] 
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>> Magnus Westerlund
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Ericsson AB                | Phone  [phone]
>> Färögatan 6                | Mobile [phone]
>> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [e-mail]
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt



-- 
Colin Perkins
http://csperkins.org/