Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review for draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes-14

["Suhas Nandakumar (snandaku)" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Dan


  My apologies for missing on the updates. For each concern raised , here are my responses.


.1.       The use of B - 'Both' terminology used to indicate that an attribute is specified S - Session Level and M - Medial Level (e.g. in Section 5) may be confusing, as there is a third possible level SR - Source Level. Actually S + M would probably be more clear.


[Suhas] - As discussed in our earlier email , i will be updating the description of 'B' to imply the attribute applies to both Session and Media level


2.Section 5.54 includes a note referring to the TBD content. 'As per section 9.1 of [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation],  there exists no publicly available specification that defines procedures for multiplexing/demultiplexing fax protocols flows over a single 5-tuple.  Once such a specification is available, the multiplexing category assignments for the attributes in this section could be revisited.' Assuming the missing specification will be publicly available sometime in the future - how will this information be added? Revise this RFC? The question applies to other TBD marked in the 'Mux Category' column of the tables in Section 5 (in 5.42, 5.44, ...)


[Suhas] Section 15.2 of the latest version does address how to deal with registry updates for the categories. Excerpt below

"

   Any future updates to the "Mux Category" column values needs to
   follow the existing registration policy of the affected table
   (Section 8.2.4.2 of [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis]).

   Also, the procedures from Section 8.2.4.1 of
   [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis] needs to be followed when assigning "Mux
   Category" value for the newly defined SDP attributes.


"


Please let me know your thoughts. I can produce a new version along wth IESG Evaluation comments next week.



Thanks

Suhas


________________________________
From: Dan Romascanu <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 2:59 AM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Gen-ART telechat review for draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes-14

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes-14
Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
Review Date: 10/26/16
IETF LC End Date: 8/10/16
IESG Telechat date: 10/28/16

Summary:
Ready.

The more important issue in my initial review was clarified in draft-14. Two minor issues were not, but these are not essential.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

1.       The use of B - 'Both' terminology used to indicate that an attribute is specified S - Session Level and M - Medial Level (e.g. in Section 5) may be confusing, as there is a third possible level SR - Source Level. Actually S + M would probably be more clear.

2. Section 5.54 includes a note referring to the TBD content. 'As per section 9.1 of [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation],  there exists no publicly available specification that defines procedures for multiplexing/demultiplexing fax protocols flows over a single 5-tuple.  Once such a specification is available, the multiplexing category assignments for the attributes in this section could be revisited.' Assuming the missing specification will be publicly available sometime in the future - how will this information be added? Revise this RFC? The question applies to other TBD marked in the 'Mux Category' column of the tables in Section 5 (in 5.42, 5.44, ...)

Nits/editorial comments:


Regards,

Dan