[MMUSIC] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp-38: (with DISCUSS)

[Alexey Melnikov via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp-38: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a fine document and I only found a few minor things that should be easy
to fix.

Thank you for addressing my comments. Unfortunately it doesn't look like my
DISCUSS point was addressed yet. Also, your IANA change introduced another
issue.

1) In 5.1:

   The candidate attribute can itself be extended.  The grammar allows
   for new name/value pairs to be added at the end of the attribute.

   Such extensions MUST be made through IETF Review or IESG Approval
   [RFC8126] and the assignments MUST contain the specific extension and
   a reference to the document defining the usage of the extension.

This is effectively creating a new registry, but this information is not
present in the IANA Considerations section. So you need to do one of the
following:

a) Remove the last sentence
b) Reword it to only talk about IETF stream documents for defining extensions
(IESG can't really do what you ask, unless you have an IANA registry
established for these.) c) Move this text to the IANA considerations and update
it to properly define a new IANA registry.

2) In 10.2:

You removed the following text:

   o  Name, Email, and Address of a contact person for the registration

   o  Organization or individuals having the change control

I think removing (postal) Address is a good thing. However the rest of this is
still needed, as IANA uses this information to decide whether a
person/organization is allowed to update an existing registry entry. So please
consider adding it back or explain why this information is not needed for a
registry where external organizations can add value (without publishing an RFC).