Re: [MMUSIC] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis-32

Paul Kyzivat <> Tue, 12 March 2019 15:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5194126F72 for <>; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 08:41:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XwTzKNBPqqpY for <>; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 08:41:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 112841200B3 for <>; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 08:41:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PaulKyzivatsMBP.localdomain ( []) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as pkyzivat@ALUM.MIT.EDU) by (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id x2CFfUaC030935 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 12 Mar 2019 11:41:31 -0400
To: Colin Perkins <>, Ben Campbell <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Paul Kyzivat <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 11:41:30 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis-32
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 15:41:36 -0000

On 3/12/19 7:08 AM, Colin Perkins wrote:

>>>>>> This is a normative requirement of RTP, however. If we want to avoid normative examples, which I’d agree makes sense, then this needs to be rewritten as just “An RTP-based system in recvonly mode SHOULD…”.
>>>>> That is the way it was. The change from "SHOULD" to "should" was to make it non-normative.
>>>>> Or were you requesting to remove “e.g."?
>>>> Remove the “e.g.”, yes, but also change “should” back to “SHOULD”.
>>> I thought the point was that the RTP specs are normative and this is only an example, and so shouldn't be normative.
>> I do not have the text in front of me, but I agree that examples should not be stated normatively.
> This is documenting a perhaps unexpected interaction between SDP and RTP. That is, when set to recvonly in SDP, an RTP endpoint SHOULD send RTCP. I do think that it’s important that we spell this out clearly here, with normative language.

I'm neutral here whether its normative or not. If it is to be a 
normative SHOULD, can we please include some "unless" text indicating 
the conditions when it may be omitted? Better yet, turn it into an "if 
NOT x then MUST ..." form.