IETF Logo Mail Archive

[AVTCORE] [avtcore] WGLC for mux-category issue of draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5282-bis-12

"Huangyihong (Rachel)" <rachel.huang@huawei.com> Thu, 29 June 2017 06:05 UTC

Return-Path: <rachel.huang@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17C16127909 for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 23:05:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.22
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZzHfURMdNT53 for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 23:05:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1ACE2126E3A for <avt@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 23:05:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO LHREML711-CAH.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DQA36075; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 06:05:21 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML411-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.70) by LHREML711-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 07:05:20 +0100
Received: from NKGEML513-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.25]) by nkgeml411-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.70]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 14:05:18 +0800
From: "Huangyihong (Rachel)" <rachel.huang@huawei.com>
To: "avt@ietf.org" <avt@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [avtcore] WGLC for mux-category issue of draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5282-bis-12
Thread-Index: AdLwnZp7sXeUq3WWT9e1QMHWLU8W7w==
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 06:05:17 +0000
Message-ID: <51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB9C4CBF80@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.134.153.152]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB9C4CBF80nkgeml513mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020205.595498A1.00F6, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.1.25, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 3494ff38e6e34c58f6d515ce3bf3b489
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/k-vDHyTg0iOMTGyz2R9TbRLj5XM>
Subject: [AVTCORE] [avtcore] WGLC for mux-category issue of draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5282-bis-12
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/avt/>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 06:05:25 -0000

Hi Folks,

As you may notice that there was a discussion for the mux category selection for a=extmap-allow-mixed in draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5282-bis-12. This issue was raised by Magnus when he was doing the shepherd work. See https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/BaElJmDlmDtOaAcXKV_Rk5fARgk. This discussion happened after the WGLC and no formal conclusion was made then.

And now the discussion is restarted in IESG review of this draft. The author thinks it should be Normal to cover multiple cases, while some people think it's better to be Identical to make things simple.

So this email is to have a one-week WGLC for this issue and deliver a formal conclusion to IESG:

If you do not agree that "Normal" mux category should be used for a=extmap-allow-mixed, please express it in the mailing list before 8th July.

Thanks.

BR,
Rachel (as the co-chair)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email