IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [bfcpbis] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-26: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Thu, 25 October 2018 02:36 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88EF2130E0A; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 19:36:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.879
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.879 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, 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 HqVborYC6ftZ; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 19:36:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3BFB5130DDF; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 19:36:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.27] (cpe-70-122-203-106.tx.res.rr.com [70.122.203.106]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w9P2aDof026796 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 24 Oct 2018 21:36:14 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-122-203-106.tx.res.rr.com [70.122.203.106] claimed to be [10.0.1.27]
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Message-Id: <37400FF7-D75F-4471-ADDB-1005AFA1B401@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_547865ED-C9C2-4E81-B50F-87DAF16695DA"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.0 \(3445.100.39\))
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 21:36:13 -0500
In-Reply-To: <154042672428.6988.18020634608915878362.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, bfcpbis@ietf.org, mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com, draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis@ietf.org, bfcpbis-chairs@ietf.org
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@MIT.EDU>
References: <154042672428.6988.18020634608915878362.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.100.39)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bfcpbis/a9ZqyTk9571nks7XmmyxA_HpISg>
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-26: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: bfcpbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: BFCPBIS working group discussion list <bfcpbis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bfcpbis>, <mailto:bfcpbis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bfcpbis/>
List-Post: <mailto:bfcpbis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bfcpbis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis>, <mailto:bfcpbis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 02:36:18 -0000


> On Oct 24, 2018, at 7:18 PM, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@MIT.EDU> wrote:
> 
> Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-26: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 

[...]

> We also had a very long discussion about the usage of the term "initial
> offer" in the context of draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation; I do not
> propose to rehash that discussion, but want to ask whether we should stick
> to the established precedent with regard to the use of the term (which,
> IIUC, would involve a change to this document).
> 

IIRC* subsequent discussion in MMUSIC decided that the important thing was to be clear on how you use the term.

* It’s entirely possible I do not. i think that was during the power failure, and I may have been distracted :-)

[...]

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status