Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-options-registry-01.txt> (IANA Registry for Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) Options) to Proposed Standard

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mykyta,

Thanks for the review.

See inline for response.

Mykyta Yevstifeyev skrev 2011-04-28 19:22:
> Hello,
> 
> Some comments on this document, currently in Last Call.
> 
>> Network Working Group                                      M. Westerlund
>> Internet-Draft                                                  Ericsson
>> Updates: 5245 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5245> (if approved)                                   C. Perkins
>> Intended status: Standards Track                   University of Glasgow
>> Expires: September 29, 2011                               March 28, 2011

> I don't see why the intended status for this document is Standards
> Track.  Wouldn't Informational be enough?  Could you please justify why
> have you chosen it?

I don't think we have put much thought into it. But one reason I can
think of is to have it on the same maturity level as the ICE
specification itself. Thus enabling a merge of this registry into an
update of RFC 5245 without forcing it to be recycled as proposed.

> 
> Your registry description does not mention what is the precise name of
> the registry.  While everybody understands that is sands for ICE
> options, it would be useful to give IANA distinctive guidelines on its
> name (this is also required in RFC5226, Section 4.2, 1) in the list;
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226#section-4.2).


Yes, I agree that it should be included in Section 3.1 of our document
rather than only in the title which says "Interactive Connectivity
Establishment (ICE) Options"

> 
> From RFC 5226, also Section 4.2:
> 
>>  5) Initial assignments and reservations.  Clear instructions
>>          should be provided to identify any initial assignments or
>>          registrations.  In addition, any ranges that are to be reserved
>>  for "Private Use", "Reserved", "Unassigned", etc. should be
>>          clearly indicated.
> 
> Are there any initial assignments?  Your document mentions one option;
> shouldn't it be registered?

No, because when draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-ecn gets published that will
actually do the registration. As that document isn't approved yet and in
fact still not WG last called this registry will first be created empty
and then populated.

> 
>>  A registration request MUST include the following information:
>>
>>    [ . . . ]
> Shall this be mentioned as a registration template?

It isn't written as one. It is a list of what needs to be present in the
registration. And I think a template would be more focused on what needs
to the general categories rather than the information. Thus I don't want
this as registration template.

> 
>> o  Email and Address of the Contact person
> I think you should add the name of the contact person to the name of
> this field as well.

As the two first bullets are:

   o  Name of contact person for the registration

   o  Email and Address of the Contact person

I don't quite understand your comment. Do you want us to merge the two
entries? This as the contact persons will need to provide name, email
and address. I am fine with merging them and this is likely a slight
improvement.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  [phone]
Färögatan 6                | Mobile [phone]
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [e-mail]
----------------------------------------------------------------------