Re: [clue] I-D Action: draft-ietf-clue-signaling-11.txt

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

On 3/13/17 11:11 AM, Rob Hansen (rohanse2) wrote:
> Minor tweaks based on Roni's suggestions and idnits:
>
> *  Some informative references added for SIP and SDP.
> *  'a=mid' lines added to example m-lines with port 0, per RFC5888 section 6.
> *  Instace of 'must' changed to normative 'MUST', along with various minor clarifications and corrections.
> *  Abstract made standalone without citations, per RFC7322 section 4.3.
> *  RFC editor note added to remove this section.

IMO the new MUST in 4.2 isn't right. This isn't a normative statement. 
Instead it is simply a statement of logical necessity: since the channel 
conveys the protocol messages, it is a prerequisite for exchanging 
protocol messages.

But this isn't a big deal. I don't mind if it gets published this way.

In the same section, regarding the introduction of "offer" into the 
following:

    The data channel is negotiated over SDP as described in
    [I-D.ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg].  A CLUE-capable device wishing
    to negotiate CLUE MUST also include a CLUE group in the SDP offer and
    include the "mid" of the "m=" line for the data channel in that
    group.  A CLUE group MUST include the "mid" of the "m=" line for one
    (and only one) data channel.

ISTM that both offerer and answerer are involved in this negotiation, 
and this statement applies to both. So I think it was more correct 
before "offer" was added. This could be changed to "... offer or answer 
...".

But again I'm not sure if this is worth changing. What do others think?

	Thanks,
	Paul