IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MMUSIC] RFC 4856 is in the correct RFC category - Errata query? [was RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729-04.txt> (Offer/Answer Considerations for G723 Annex A and G729 Annex B) to Proposed Standard]

SM <sm@resistor.net> Tue, 03 December 2013 10:00 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BCB51AE0F5 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 02:00:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.79
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KrQeUk4XYErx for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 02:00:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 302741AE0F4 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 02:00:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rB39xlk9009808; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 01:59:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1386064795; bh=0hMhyf4AFNbHpkh+4CzQ/5WMQlPzDHdDGkqV2VrtMRo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=gV400h5YnfdTF1UtKv3sylg438dhBmcT5ecnY+PDQ4NIh9Ip4H1C4SLlu5VQS/Hfy n2FpLVCJvz4ShDk5ozwQroU7HUgOJtVPcmHr4AN03yHaRDgzv6ZdcxMfharTzT16oK YgF+M0DfgkixkslOc/gT65nW4oLup7JLySNwP0P8=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1386064795; i=@resistor.net; bh=0hMhyf4AFNbHpkh+4CzQ/5WMQlPzDHdDGkqV2VrtMRo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=lwLAGC9Cgv/jwBmdgcr5fJtQr/XgmwK2zgUudtG6g9hUXdee0i2158/wAaFB3AaJX hrawBVFSfpLZ5gUEbfmebsaH4xMBurWoVuXqbH3GixbYySTwrq2fA05OAgnh4T60el 6pc/fbgfvuV1zXmJYNd10s9kDFc5gZ09FYrHJR/4=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20131203010105.0db5d630@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 01:10:28 -0800
To: Stephen Casner <casner@acm.org>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.1.10.1312020834220.60832@luft.gateway.2wire.net >
References: <20131030131748.6987.86198.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20131030185231.0ddfb7a8@resistor.net> <00a101ced981$77414d60$65c3e820$@co.in> <00ab01cee555$05f53560$11dfa020$@co.in> <6.2.5.6.2.20131119110213.0cb0dd40@resistor.net> <016b01ceed2f$0be29e90$23a7dbb0$@co.in> <alpine.OSX.1.10.1312020834220.60832@luft.gateway.2wire.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com>, Ari Kerdnen <ari.keranen@ericsson.com>, mmusic@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] RFC 4856 is in the correct RFC category - Errata query? [was RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729-04.txt> (Offer/Answer Considerations for G723 Annex A and G729 Annex B) to Proposed Standard]
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 10:00:04 -0000

Hi Stephen,
At 08:52 02-12-2013, Stephen Casner wrote:
>I believe the status of RFC 4856 is correct.  It updates RFC 3555 to
>define and register the media types for the RTP profile RFC 3551.
>What other status would be more appropriate for that ?

There was an assumption that the status chosen for some previous RFC 
is correct.  The problem might have been with RFC 3555.  It is better 
not to look at the details of those old RFCs too closely. :-)

>RFC 4856 is not a specification of any payload format; it refers to
>other documents that specify the payload formats (and SDP usage).  It
>only specifies how a MIME media type is used to refer to a payload
>format that carries an encoding.  RFC 4856 refers to RFC 3551 for the
>payload format of G723 and G729, which in turn refers to the ITU
>Recommendations.

My short response would be yes.  Please note that I did not verify 
all the details.

Regards,
-sm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email