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

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Tue, 12 March 2019 15:41 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5194126F72 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 08:41:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XwTzKNBPqqpY for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 08:41:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing-alum.mit.edu (outgoing-alum.mit.edu [18.7.68.33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 112841200B3 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 08:41:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PaulKyzivatsMBP.localdomain (c-24-62-227-142.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.62.227.142]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as pkyzivat@ALUM.MIT.EDU) by outgoing-alum.mit.edu (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 <csp@csperkins.org>, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Cc: mmusic@ietf.org
References: <04CAFF8C-B6ED-4B7D-9FDD-ED37DCA2848B@nostrum.com> <2f297a3c-39d4-cb99-65f4-f0bcd072306a@alum.mit.edu> <C054EF10-FE82-4E9D-9ABA-5C2E6090F0C9@csperkins.org> <6f0d20c2-0397-2bbd-5671-8b7ea0d8c98d@alum.mit.edu> <0A5AD09E-8C94-4698-9418-EA0DE099FD07@csperkins.org> <57c8eb93-895a-9c7e-cdea-27237c67b2b0@alum.mit.edu> <F02E04D0-EEEA-4908-9035-85A321B890CC@nostrum.com> <8ECE1C75-95E1-47C4-B642-AE4F8061F563@csperkins.org>
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <2432bf01-64de-2132-b4bc-ab5d51d1773d@alum.mit.edu>
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: <8ECE1C75-95E1-47C4-B642-AE4F8061F563@csperkins.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/88w_cwbHzPDZgajQceXf5c_RXf4>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis-32
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mmusic/>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=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.

	Thanks,
	Paul