Re: [MMUSIC] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes-14: (with COMMENT)

Hello Mirja ,

Thanks for the review. Please see inline for the response.

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
wrote:

> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes-14: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Two comments:
>
> 1) The category TDB is not fully clear to me. It says: "The attributes in
> the TBD category have not been analyzed", but why? Can you further
> explain?
>

[Suhas]: The category TBD serves 2 purposes.

Purpose 1: The WG decided to stop draft updates with new attribute analysis
towards the end of 2015 when it was decided to take the draft to the last
call. This was done so to keep the draft edits under control and not to
keep in a edit-loop forever when new SDP attributes popped up. All those
attributes that were added since then will get the category TBD in the IANA
registry and the individual drafts that define those attributes take on the
role of deciding the MUX category and the corresponding IANA updates.
An excerpt from Section 15.2 along the same lines below:
"

For the entries in the existing subregistries, under the "Session
   Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters" registry, that lack a value
   for the "Mux Category" in this specification will get a value of
   "TBD"

"

Purpose 2: There are few attributes in the current analysis of the draft
that are assigned the category TBD. A specific example is Section 5.54 (ITU
T.38). I have included the note below to explain in the section the reasons
why the WG decided the category as TBD.
"

NOTE: As per section 9.1 of [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation],
   there exists no publicly available specification that defines
   procedures for multiplexing/demultiplexing fax protocols flows over a
   single 5-tuple.  Once such a specification is available, the
   multiplexing category assignments for the attributes in this section
   could be revisited.

"
Since we don't have a standard specification to define the mux/demux of Fax
protocols with RTP, the only category that made sense was TBD. This state
can be updated once such a spec is defined in the future. Similar reasoning
applies to other TBD attributes.

Please let me know if the above answers your concerns.

>
> 2) Is the new registry for the Mux Category really needed? Is it expected
> to (much) more categories in future?
>

[Suhas] -  We need the registry to list the currently defined Mux
Categories and also we do see there might be couple of more categories (if
not many) that might get defined in the future.

>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>