Re: [MMUSIC] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp-38: (with DISCUSS)

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alexey,

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

>This is a fine document and I only found a few minor things that should be easy to fix.
>
>Thank you for addressing my comments. Unfortunately it doesn't look like my DISCUSS point was addressed yet. 

Correct. There was a slight misunderstanding between the authors. It seems like Suhas thought all issues had been addressed in my pull requests, which was not the case. Sorry for the confusion.

>Also, your IANA change introduced another issue.
>
>1) In 5.1:
>
>   The candidate attribute can itself be extended.  The grammar allows
>   for new name/value pairs to be added at the end of the attribute.
>
>   Such extensions MUST be made through IETF Review or IESG Approval
>   [RFC8126] and the assignments MUST contain the specific extension and
>   a reference to the document defining the usage of the extension.
>
> This is effectively creating a new registry, but this information is not present in the IANA Considerations section. 
> So you need to do one of the
> following:
>
> a) Remove the last sentence
> b) Reword it to only talk about IETF stream documents for defining extensions (IESG can't really do what you ask, 
> unless you have an IANA registry established for these.) 
> c) Move this text to the IANA considerations and update it to properly define a new IANA registry.

Our plan is to go for option c), and create a new IANA registry. We will create a pull request, and verify that the WG is ok with it.

---

>2) In 10.2:
>
>You removed the following text:
>
>   o  Name, Email, and Address of a contact person for the registration
>
>   o  Organization or individuals having the change control
>
> I think removing (postal) Address is a good thing. However the rest of this is still needed, as IANA uses 
> this information to decide whether a person/organization is allowed to update an existing registry entry. 
> may be closed down. The authors of the RFC may have moved on. etc
>
> So please consider adding it back or explain why this information is not needed for a registry where external 
> organizations can add value (without publishing an RFC).

The text already says that "Specification Required" applies to new entries.

I am not aware of another registry where we would define entry-specific rules. 

Regards,

Christer