Re: [MMUSIC] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-28: (with COMMENT)

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,


On 24/08/17 21:53, "Adam Roach" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>On 8/24/17 13:02, Ben Campbell wrote:
>>> On Aug 24, 2017, at 12:52 PM, Adam Roach <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 8/24/17 12:48, Ben Campbell wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 23, 2017, at 1:30 PM, Adam Roach <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8/23/17 04:38, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>>>>>>> I would think the long-form title of this document should include
>>>>>>>"TLS,"
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> reflect that it also contains TLS-related procedures.
>>>>>> The issue is that the document doesn¹t really define the O/A
>>>>>>procedures
>>>>>> for TLS. It simply adds the usage of the tls-id attribute to the
>>>>>>existing
>>>>>> procedures defined elsewhere.
>>>>> Right, so make that clear. I note that simply adding "and
>>>>>Identification of TLS Connections" to the end is ambiguous (since it
>>>>>makes it sound like it defines O/A for TLS), but you can fix this by
>>>>>reversing the existing title; e.g., something like: "Establishing
>>>>>Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Using the Session
>>>>>Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answer Mechanism and Identification
>>>>>of Transport Layer Security (TLS) Connections in SDP”
>>>> Wow, that’s petty cumbersome as a title―it’s pretty much an abstract.
>>>>Does it need that much detail?
>>>>
>>> It's the result of taking a reasonably short title ("Establishing DLTS
>>>using the SDP Offer/Answer Mechanism and Identification of TLS
>>>Connections in SDP") and applying RFC Editor policies of acronym
>>>expansion to it. If you can think of some shorter way to say it, that'd
>>>be great -- but if I'm perusing a list of titles for something
>>>TLS-related and come across one that mentions only DTLS, I'd skip over
>>>it. The original title seems like a genuine flaw.
>> Here’s a sacrificial proposal from the _much_ more general side:
>>
>>      “DTLS and TLS considerations in the SDP Offer/Answer Mechanism”
>>
>> … with appropriate acronym expansions of course.
>
>I have no problem with that.


“In the mechanism” sounds a little strange in my ears, so I suggest:

“SDP Offer/Answer considerations for DTLS and TLS”

Regards,

Christer