Re: [MMUSIC] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729-04.txt> (Offer/Answer Considerations for G723 Annex A and G729 Annex B) to Proposed Standard

[SM <[e-mail]>]

Hi Partha,

I forgot to mention that I am not subscribed to the MMUSIC mailing list.

At 10:27 19-11-2013, Parthasarathi R wrote:
>I have clarified all your below queries. Could you please let me know in
>case you still see any specific issue with the draft.

In my humble opinion RFC 4856 is more about a media type registration 
request instead of a technical specification about 
interoperability.  It is mentioned in Section 1 of that RFC that it 
updates the media type registrations.  The fact that RFC 4856 is 
published as a Proposed Standard does not mean that it is the correct 
status.  There are a lot of oddities in the IETF Stream.  I prefer 
not to ask about those oddities. :-)

draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729-04 mentions G723 Annex A and G729 
Annex B.  There aren't any references for them.  The problem with the 
draft is that it builds upon RFC 4856 instead of the technical 
specification where the protocol is specified.  Is G723 Annex A and 
G729 Annex B needed to implement what the draft tries to do?  In my 
opinion, yes.

The document shepherd write-up has the following question:

   "Why is this the proper type of RFC?"

The answer provided is:

  "Proposed Standard.  The title page notes the document as Standards Track"

That does not answer the question.

Regards,
-sm