Re: [MMUSIC] Comments on IESG Changes in the -cs draft ? [Fwd: Protocol Action: 'Session Description Protocol (SDP) Extension For Setting Audio and Video Media Streams Over Circuit-Switched Bearers In The Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN)' to Pr...

I have no idea how these choices ended up in the draft.
IIRC they are the same choices used in VIPR. At least there I thought 
the point was that none of them are guaranteed to work, so having 
multiple choices increases the chances of success. But I think that 
means offering them all and then trying them successively until one 
works, or until one fails in a way that convinces you not to try any more.

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 8/14/13 2:05 AM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
>
>
> The DTMF approach is spectacularly irritating. The user often gets an earful of DTMF and is really confused about why they got DTMF.
>
> I don't care about the MUST implement all three but I think it is a bad idea to say that the offer SHOULD use DTMF. I'd like to see DTMF be a "MAY" use in the offer.
>
>
> On uuie, it's might be worth noting that a valid reason not to use uuie in the offer is that something else has already used theses bits.
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 9, 2013, at 4:10 PM, Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>> Greetings MMUSIC
>>
>> As you can see per the below, the IESG approved the Circuit-Switched Bearers draft for publication, however before doing so, they requested a couple of changes. The resulting approved document can be found at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs-21
>>
>> One of the changes introduced resulted in all 3 correlation mechanisms now being mandatory-to-implement (previously they were not):
>> <quote>
>>     Implementations MUST support the three correlation mechanisms
>>     specified in
>> Section 5.2.3.2, Section 5.2.3.3 and Section 5.2.3.4
>> ,
>>     and SHOULD include all supported mechanisms the initial Offer.
>>
>> </quote>
>> Since this is a non-trivial change that has not been discussed by the WG (and we know of at least one person having expressed concerns with it off-line), we are hereby solicting the WG participants for input on changes introduced as a result of the IESG review with a focus on the above. In doing so, please keep in mind that we are developing standards that work in the general Internet.
>>
>>
>> The following URL provides a diff-file showing the changes resulting from the IESG review:
>>      http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs-18.txt&url2=draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs-21.txt
>>
>> Comments are due by August 23 (two weeks from today)
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> -- Flemming (MMUSIC co-chair)
>>
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject:	[MMUSIC] Protocol Action: 'Session Description Protocol (SDP) Extension For Setting Audio and Video Media Streams Over Circuit-Switched Bearers In The Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN)' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs-21.txt)
>> Date:	Mon, 1 Jul 2013 11:56:23 -0700
>> From:	The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
>> To:	IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
>> CC:	mmusic chair <mmusic-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, mmusic mailing list <mmusic@ietf.org>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
>>
>> The IESG has approved the following document:
>> - 'Session Description Protocol (SDP) Extension For Setting Audio and
>>     Video Media Streams Over Circuit-Switched Bearers In The Public
>>     Switched Telephone Network (PSTN)'
>>    (draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs-21.txt) as Proposed Standard
>>
>> This document is the product of the Multiparty Multimedia Session Control
>> Working Group.
>>
>> The IESG contact persons are Gonzalo Camarillo and Richard Barnes.
>>
>> A URL of this Internet Draft is:
>>
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Technical Summary
>> *
>>
>> The document describes use cases, requirements, and protocol extensions
>> for using the Session Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answer model for
>> establishing audio and video media streams over circuit-switched bearers
>> in the Publich Switched Telephone Network (PSTN)
>>
>> *Working Group Summary
>> *
>>
>> The WG had some discussion around the format to use for E.164 numbers
>> and whether to align this with the existing definition in RFC 3108. The
>> RFC 3108 definition was seen as deficient and the WG agreed it was
>> better to align with relevant parts of the tel URI format defined in RFC
>> 3966, not least since SDP address types are defined in the context of a
>> particular network type, and hence RFC 3108 compatibility is not a
>> concern (the implication is that the "E164" address type may differ
>> between network types in SDP).
>>
>> *Document Quality
>> *
>>
>> There are currently no known implementations of the draft, however the
>> draft is a dependency for 3GPP, so future implementations are expected.
>>
>> The document has received good overall review in the WG, some of which
>> resulted in changes to the detailed specification. The document has been
>> reviewed in detail several times, including of the last few versions.
>> The major contributors to these as well as earlier discussions are
>> listed in the Acknowledgements section of the document.
>>
>>
>> *Personnel
>> *
>>
>> Document Shepherd: Flemming Andreasen
>> Responsible AD: Gonzalo Camarillo
>> _______________________________________________
>> mmusic mailing list
>>
>> mmusic@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>>
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mmusic mailing list
>> mmusic@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>