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

[Stephen Casner <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:

> I think the problem here originates with RFC 4856.
>
> All RFC 4856 does is create IANA registrations within SDP.
>
> It does not contain any requirements, except by implication, of how
> those registrations are used. An IANA registration, per se, cannot
> contain any normative requirements, all it is a list of assigned
> values.
>
> As such for the scope that RFC 4856 seeks to cover, it should not
> have been standards track.

I disagree.  Establishing the media type registrations is a valid part
of the standardization process.  I believe there are other examples of
standard track documents written for the purpose of IANA
registrations, such as 3575, 4002, 4355, 4415, although there are also
a number of others that are BCP.

None of that is relevant to the current I-D, though.

> As it is now specified I do not believe
> draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729-04.txt updates RFC 4856. It does not
> change any of the IANA registrations, and that is pretty much all
> the scope of RFC 4856. If there is an update at all created by
> draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729, I suspect it is to RFC 3551 as
> these are the documents that actually specify such media types can
> be used within the SDP. However my preference would be to not have
> this document do any update.

Exactly.  That is what I said in my email reply on Monday.

> I do believe draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729 normatively impacts the
> usage of SDP in offer / answer usage and as such should be standards
> track.

Right.

                                                        -- Steve