Re: [AVTCORE] Francesca Palombini's Discuss on draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-scip-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>]

Francesca,

We are changing this section to:

8. SCIP Contact Information

The SCIP protocol is maintained by the SCIP Working Group.

[address]...


Dan Hanson
General Dynamics Mission Systems

From: Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini=[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2023 9:00 AM
To: Hanson, Daniel C <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Francesca Palombini's Discuss on draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-scip-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

External E-mail --- CAUTION: This email originated from outside GDMS. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Dan,

I am talking about the change controller of the existing registrations (see for example https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-scip/ , Change controller:    SCIP Working Group - ncia.cis3&ncia.nato.int ). My comment is about that: it is good practice to have the change controller be the IETF for registrations for which an RFC exists (as in this case), so that inconsistencies are less likely. Hope this makes sense.

Francesca

From: iesg <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <Dan.Hanson=[e-mail]<mailto:Dan.Hanson=[e-mail]>>
Date: Wednesday, 18 January 2023 at 16:55
To: Francesca Palombini <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, The IESG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: RE: Francesca Palombini's Discuss on draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-scip-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Francesca,

The Change Controller indicated in this document refers to SCIP protocol not the 'RFC' itself.


Regards,
Dan Hanson
General Dynamics Mission Systems

-----Original Message-----
From: Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 9:25 AM
To: The IESG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Francesca Palombini's Discuss on draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-scip-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

----
External E-mail --- CAUTION: This email originated from outside GDMS. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-scip-04: 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 https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-scip/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Apologies for the delayed DISCUSS ballot. I just wanted to bring a process
question up before the document moves forward.

Since this document will be the reference RFC for two existing media type
registrations, I wonder if the change controller should be changed to IETF
instead of the SCIP wg. In practice this would mean that any change to the
registration would need to go through the IETF, which might make inconsistency
between the RFC of reference and the registrations less likely.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work on this document. I also read this document without
reading the SCIP spec, as that spec is referenced informatively.

Many thanks to Jim Fenton for his ART ART reviews:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/VUZVeNkbH40M6Oy_yqI7Om9Lvo0/ and
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/HjMttUhTSLuOJZvrvALfHHbAl90/, and to
the authors for addressing Jim's comments.