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

Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> Thu, 14 March 2019 15:02 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 5DA801310A1 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 08:02:28 -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 Xz9wXqO3DI3y for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 08:02:26 -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 252D0130EF1 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 08:02:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [130.209.157.49] (port=49372 helo=glaroam2-156-134.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 1h4Rs0-0006TF-7N; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 15:02:08 +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: <2432bf01-64de-2132-b4bc-ab5d51d1773d@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 15:02:05 +0000
Cc: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, mmusic@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AEB1F98C-F562-4810-9892-14F7C5526CED@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> <8ECE1C75-95E1-47C4-B642-AE4F8061F563@csperkins.org> <2432bf01-64de-2132-b4bc-ab5d51d1773d@alum.mit.edu>
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 4
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/C-mRCNsWb_gUrh53EpLWRYDUU9Y>
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: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 15:02:30 -0000

> On 12 Mar 2019, at 15:41, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> 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.


I don’t think I can summarise the rules around when RTCP is, or is not, to be sent as a simple condition. If more detail is needed, I suggest “An RTP-based system in recvonly mode SHOULD still send RTCP packets as described in [RFC3550] Section 6”.

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