Re: [AVTCORE] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-10

["Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ben - 

Comments inline…

> On Jul 16, 2016, at 11:56 PM, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> This is my AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-10. I think these comments can be addressed in parallel to the IETF last call, so I'm going to request that shortly.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Ben.
> 
> Substantive Comments:
> 
> 
> - This draft has a pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. Is that really needed? Am I correct it is due to the excerpted "OLD" text from RFC5764? If so, has anyone checked with the authors of that (Ekr and David McGrew) about whether they would agree to let this draft progress without the disclaimer?

We sent an email to David McGrew and EKR asking to publish without the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer.  McGrew was in favor but EKR stated "I am not sure that all the text in 5764 is pre-5378, so probably better to be safe.”  This is the reason we have proceeded with the disclaimer.

> -1, last paragraph:
> 
> Are there any plans to fix 7345 or bundle-negotiation?

I co-authored 7345 with Christer, so we can have a discussion about fixing that one. 

> I see that 7345 replicates language from 5764 rather than references it, but it looks like a fairly easy fix.

Are you think bis effort? or filing an errata? 

> I wonder if bundle-negotiation really needs a fix beyond the fact that it's reference to 5764 will effectively inherit any fixes due to the obsolescence of 5764.

Bundle isn’t published, so presumably they are in time to fix it.  I’ll leave that one to you to handle in the best way possible.

> This paragraph will likely be overtaken by events at some point. Remember that an RFC lasts forever. Language to the effect of "at the time of this writing" might be helpful.

OK, we can prepend to the first sentence of the last paragraph something like what you suggest, namely "at the time of this writing”.  Would that work

> Editorial Comments:
> 
> - Section 1, paragraph 6 (First paragraph after numbered list)
> 
> This paragraph goes a bit far into value judgements. Can we dispense terms like "bad design" and "socially undesirable”?

This text came more or less verbatim from Stephen Farrell during the TLS WG review of the document and is what they signed off on. I hesitate to undo that at this point, but we can discuss it as part of IESG review.

> Also, I'm a little confused by the last sentence--what is the point of "even if a codepoint is not initially thought to be useful”?

Good catch.  Perhaps it would be clearer to say "even if the feature related to a codepoint is not initially thought to be useful in the context of demultiplexing”?

Cheers,

Gonzalo