[MMUSIC] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp-37: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 06 August 2019 15:59 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietf.org
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 081B81203B7; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 08:59:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp@ietf.org, mmusic-chairs@ietf.org, fandreas@cisco.com, mmusic@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.100.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <156510716501.18086.1896150985239645556.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2019 08:59:25 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/EC2aOKKE7RumfXSWS3RDpDStTmU>
Subject: [MMUSIC] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp-37: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 06 Aug 2019 15:59:25 -0000
Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp-37: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Apologies for multiple ballot emails, wrapped up a bit too soon the first time. I'm confused about Section 7. The mechanisms in RFC 4091 and RFC 4092 were deprecated in RFC 5245, and this is mentioned in RFC 8445. Why does this specification then need to additionally normatively recommend the use of ICE for dual-stack scenarios? This could be interpreted as saying that ANAT is an alternative option for this use case, but it shouldn't be according to RFC 8445. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Since RFC 5245 is already obsolete, this document cannot obsolete it I don't think. RFC 8445 references this document, so readers of that document will be able to find this one. Section 2: Please use the precise boilerplate from RFC 8174. Section 4.1: It's not clear why IESG Approval is included as one of the registration policies to extend the candidate attribute. Does the WG anticipate cases where IETF Review will not be appropriate? And I agree with Alexey that a registry needs to be defined in the IANA Considerations section. Section 8: Agree with Ben about adding references to ICE and SDP security considerations. Section 9.1.1: s/esg@ietf.org/iesg@ietf.org/ Section 9.2: Further to Alexey's point, the minimal information necessary for the registry to function should be collected and/or published.
- [MMUSIC] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-mm… Alissa Cooper via Datatracker
- Re: [MMUSIC] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-iet… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-iet… Roman Shpount