Re: [MMUSIC] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis-35: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

Even if IANA understands what you want and gets it perfect when they
create the registry, there is value in having the specifics recorded
in the IANA Considerations in the published RFC.  It's not hard to do,
so let's just do it, yes?

Barry

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 4:40 PM Adam Roach <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On 7/24/19 16:23, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> > On 7/24/19 8:45 AM, Adam Roach wrote:
> >
> >> Paul --
> >>
> >> I see that there are some changes in -36 around this text ("IANA will
> >> populate its registries with some or all of these values"). This
> >> isn't really clear enough for IANA to know what to do. Could you
> >> produce a new version that is explicit regarding which of these
> >> collected fields are published? (e.g.: "IANA will populate its
> >> registries with the parameter name, the parameter type, and the
> >> document reference.")
> >
> > I *can*. But is it necessary for these instructions to be included in
> > the draft? ISTM that the structures IANA has now often differ from
> > (probably inadequate) instructions in drafts. My impression is that
> > iana has considerable discretion about how this stuff is structures in
> > the registries. Could I just work with IANA on how to do it?
> >
> > But if putting this into -37 is the best way then I am happy to do that.
>
>
> Even if it's not the best -- and it might be -- it's certainly the fastest.
>
> To be clear, I sent my email after conferring with Alissa, and it is my
> impression that it would take more than a little convincing for her to
> allow the current text in -36 to move forward, if it is indeed possible
> at all.
>
> /a
>