IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MMUSIC] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis-35: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Wed, 24 July 2019 20:40 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
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 F3F7E120637 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 13:40:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.68
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.68 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.com
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 mZrYRwY6iQxN for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 13:40:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25047120623 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 13:40:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Orochi.local ([196.52.21.194]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x6OKe9f3083317 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 24 Jul 2019 15:40:11 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1564000813; bh=TDPd8DuhcArT0XbuGlCG49ZjsthGEQYvDSeIKBYz0yc=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=ksbsJqD45emFXbu2fLM7FBv0ZmeARl520/c5LskenRbTUlGMW4DXHbhf0TtvjD4Mp +cviRgcgt4Qfnvnb4crGZWjYsB+JcVLLEnWAMgIlip544GDjAGn7NzvG/sa1tBqZNu Awj16C4yMBokHoCkoKlUZ4/xtbUylrvQAEE0Sj5E=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [196.52.21.194] claimed to be Orochi.local
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: fandreas@cisco.com, mmusic-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis@ietf.org, mmusic@ietf.org
References: <155907213212.25802.10923362703417281306.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <da24d89f-79cc-3fcc-aaad-4753cc552b3b@alum.mit.edu> <e3baf0e3-831b-7286-fbb4-c76758e12c7a@nostrum.com> <f5ed2cbb-188d-19ff-a973-bb27c4e3ca0b@alum.mit.edu>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <58600430-a539-7773-8fb2-4a065f95cd64@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 16:39:58 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <f5ed2cbb-188d-19ff-a973-bb27c4e3ca0b@alum.mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/9qDmen4NWF4Z0BwFoNbWyq-xM50>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis-35: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 20:40:15 -0000

On 7/24/19 16:23, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> On 7/24/19 8:45 AM, Adam Roach wrote:
>
>> Paul --
>>
>> I see that there are some changes in -36 around this text ("IANA will 
>> populate its registries with some or all of these values"). This 
>> isn't really clear enough for IANA to know what to do. Could you 
>> produce a new version that is explicit regarding which of these 
>> collected fields are published? (e.g.: "IANA will populate its 
>> registries with the parameter name, the parameter type, and the 
>> document reference.")
>
> I *can*. But is it necessary for these instructions to be included in 
> the draft? ISTM that the structures IANA has now often differ from 
> (probably inadequate) instructions in drafts. My impression is that 
> iana has considerable discretion about how this stuff is structures in 
> the registries. Could I just work with IANA on how to do it?
>
> But if putting this into -37 is the best way then I am happy to do that. 


Even if it's not the best -- and it might be -- it's certainly the fastest.

To be clear, I sent my email after conferring with Alissa, and it is my 
impression that it would take more than a little convincing for her to 
allow the current text in -36 to move forward, if it is indeed possible 
at all.

/a

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email