[AVT] Re: Last Call: 'RTP Payload for DTMF Digits, Telephony ones and T elephony Signals' to Proposed Standard

Sorry to cause you alarm, but mentioning the other documents by name in 
the base specification would nullify the reason for splitting the 
document in the first place. The whole point was to allow requests for 
new event code points to stand on their own merits while preserving 
backward compatibility to the extent to which 2833 seems to have been 
implemented. We dropped the whole set of telephone line signalling 
events, for instance, because no one spoke up for them. Nevertheless, if 
someone sees a need for them in the future, they are free to introduce a 
new draft.

As I think about it, it might be possible to add something in the 
abstract, which talks about changes from RFC 2833.

As for the current status of 2833biscas: I gave it lower priority 
because I was unaware of any reference to these code points outside of 
some PacketCable documentation. The missing piece of work is a careful 
review of congestion implications. Otherwise, there has been no comment 
on this document for nearly a year. Given your document dependency, I'd 
better finish my piece of the work and ask for WGLC.

Sasha Vainshtein wrote:
> Hi Magnus,
> Thank you for a prompt and informative response.
> 
> I must admit that I did not look up
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rfc2833biscas-01.txt.
> This is because it was neither mentioned in the IESG Last Call announcement
> nor referenced in the core
> 2833bis draft.
> 
> The 2833bisdata and 2833biscas drafts seem to fill in most of the gaps in
> the code point space left
> by the core draft. In particular, my concern about code points for the ABCD
> signaling states is 
> adequately addressed by the 2833biscas draft.
> 
> The problem would not arise if the all the 2833bis drafts were treated by
> the IESG as a single block.
> After checking with the I-D tracker I see that this is not the case, as the
> 2833biscas draft has not
> been sent to the IESG yet. 
> 
> I understand that adding the 2833biscas draft to the block now may be
> problematic for the authors 
> and/or the WG.
> 
> As a minimum, may I suggest explicitly referencing the 2 companion drafts in
> the core 2833bis 
> document and explaining which kinds of code points are going to be allocated
> there?
> The logical place for such an explanation would be, IMHO, in the IANA
> Considerations section,
> so that at least the IANA people could look up these documents and mark the
> code points 
> allocated there as "reserved" once the core document has been (hopefully,
> successfully) 
> processed by the IESG.
> 
> Regards,
>                               Sasha
> 
...

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt