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

[Dan Romascanu <[e-mail]>]

Hi Suhas,

The proposed edits would be fine with me. Thank you for addressing all my
concerns.

Regards,

Dan


On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 9:12 PM, Suhas Nandakumar (snandaku) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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]; draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-
> [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
>
>