Re: [MMUSIC] SDP Mux Attributes

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 8:57 AM, Suhas Nandakumar <suhasietf@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello All
>  At the IETF98 meeting there was a discussion on DOWNRef'ing the
> RFC4566bis dependency on the SDP Attributes Mux draft.
> However Ben suggested following changes that would help us move RFC455bis
> as Informational Dependency rather than normative one ( as it is today)
> Please let us know if we all agree on the same so that I can submit an
> updated version
> <excerpt>
> The offending text is from section 15.2:
> " Any future updates to the "Mux Category" column values needs to follow
> the existing registration policy of the affected table (Section 8.2.4.2 of
> [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis]).
> Also, the procedures from Section 8.2.4.1 of
> [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis] needs to be followed when assigning "Mux
> Category" value for the newly defined SDP attributes."
> Proposed Text:
> "The registration policy for updates to the 'Mux Category' column values
> for existing parameters, or when registering new parameters,are beyond the
> scope of this document. The registration policy  for the affected table is
> defined in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis]"
>
Works for me.

-acbegen

> </excerpt>
>
> Thanks
> Suhas
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>
>

Re: [MMUSIC] SDP Mux Attributes - RFC4566bis dependenc (IETF 98 Followup)