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

Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> Tue, 12 March 2019 11:08 UTC

Return-Path: <csp@csperkins.org>
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 73DBF1274D0 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 04:08:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 8OHPrHYMowc6 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 04:08:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from haggis.mythic-beasts.com (haggis.mythic-beasts.com [IPv6:2a00:1098:0:86:1000:0:2:1]) (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 45513126E5C for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 04:08:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [130.209.157.54] (port=3123 helo=glaroam2-137-14.wireless.gla.ac.uk) by haggis.mythic-beasts.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <csp@csperkins.org>) id 1h3fH0-0005lQ-3u; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 11:08:42 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
In-Reply-To: <F02E04D0-EEEA-4908-9035-85A321B890CC@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 11:08:39 +0000
Cc: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>, mmusic@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8ECE1C75-95E1-47C4-B642-AE4F8061F563@csperkins.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>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 4
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/9cDhNnRN8jhxXi7a6LOgtcczdZc>
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 11:08:47 -0000

> On 11 Mar 2019, at 23:22, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Mar 11, 2019, at 5:26 PM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> 
>> On 3/11/19 1:43 PM, Colin Perkins wrote:
>> 
>>>>> §5 has several changes to normative language. Most are okay, but I think the change from “all MUST appear in exactly the order given here” to “all must appear” weakens it too much, and I’d prefer that to remain a MUST.
>>>> 
>>>> The reason for changing that is because the *normative* specification of the ordering is from the ABNF. The text here is explanatory and non-normative. (Note that a couple of paragraphs prior to this is a new statement emphasizing that the ABNF is normative.)
>>> Sorry, but I think this change is problematic. The text needs to use normative language that is consistent with the ABNF.
>> 
>> My thinking is that we don't like to have redundant normative specification, just in case they aren't consistent. The ABNF is normative. This section is of necessity an approximation.
>> 
>> But I defer to Ben or whoever.
> 
> I agree with both of you. :-) 
> 
> That is, we should avoid duplication normative requirements when possible, because it increases the chance of  spec errors. But we should still try to make sure the sections agree.
> 
>> 
>>>>> 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. 

-- 
Colin Perkins
https://csperkins.org/