Re: [MMUSIC] 1-week WGLC on Section 7.6 (3PCC Considerations) in draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-06

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

Christer,

On 11/29/21 2:00 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
> Since the issue is introduced by BUNDLE, I think we should say more than 
> simply "the 3PCC has to do something".
> 
> I am fine to change the current procedure from a SHOULD to an example, 
> but I do think we should include some guidance.
> 
> For example:
> 
> "Therefore, the 3PCC controller needs to take actions to mitigate this 
> problem, e.g., by rewriting the subsequent BUNDLE offer
> into a valid initial BUNDLE offer (Section 7.2), before it forwards the 
> BUNDLE offer to a UA."
> 
> (I have no strong opinion on whether we use "3GPP controller needs to" 
> or "3GPP controller SHOULD".)

That works for me. My problem with the earlier text was that it 
described *a* solution as if it was *the* solution that would solve the 
problem, when there are potential problems it doesn't solve.

Changing it to be one example improves it.

There could be a longer discussion about what kinds of things could go 
wrong and how to mitigate each. But that may be overkill.

	Thanks,
	Paul