[Gen-art] RE: Gen ART review of draft-ietf-avt-compact-bundled-evrc-09.txt

"default change requires new RFC" is fine with me, and Qiaobing's
proposal to just remove the notes about possible 3GPP2 changes to
defaults is a reasonable way to get there.   Thanks, --David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Qiaobing Xie [mailto:Qiaobing.Xie@motorola.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 1:33 AM
> To: Colin Perkins
> Cc: Black, David; gen-art@ietf.org; rkapoor@qualcomm.com; 
> fluffy@cisco.com; taylor@nortel.com; roni.even@polycom.co.il
> Subject: Re: Gen ART review of 
> draft-ietf-avt-compact-bundled-evrc-09.txt
> 
> Hi, David, Colin,
> 
> ...
> >>
> >> I don't like that idea - if there are interoperability issues here,
they
> >> need to be documented, but if there aren't interoperability issues
here,
> >> the MUST was probably wrong.  I would advise consulting your WG
chairs
> >> (and possibly the responsible AD) about the importance and
potential
> >> impact of this issue, as I'm not sufficiently expert to make the
call.
> > 
> > Qiaobing is the expert on this codec. As working group chair, I'm
happy 
> > to go with his opinion on this issue. This seems like a minor issue,

> > with no impact on the larger protocol design choices.
> > 
> 
> I agree with Colin. There is no impact on the protocol design here.
> 
> In the rather unlikely event (I can't still think of a reason for it
to 
> happen) that someone wants to change the defaults, a new RFC (or a new

> 3GPP2 spec) probably will have to be created to not only specify the 
> exact changes, but also give meaningful analysis and address on any 
> potential inter-op issues. Those discussions seems out of scope of
this 
> RFC. That's the reason I propose to remove the misleading note.
> 
> regards,
> -Qiaobing
> 
> > Colin

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art