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

[Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

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.