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

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Mon, 11 March 2019 21:26 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
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 80C7B12426E for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 14:26:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-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 S3gHQXBLv3Bs for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 14:26:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing-alum.mit.edu (outgoing-alum.mit.edu [18.7.68.33]) (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 7BF4113116F for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 14:26:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PaulKyzivatsMBP.localdomain (c-24-62-227-142.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.62.227.142]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as pkyzivat@ALUM.MIT.EDU) by outgoing-alum.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id x2BLQWnf030072 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 11 Mar 2019 17:26:33 -0400
To: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
Cc: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, mmusic@ietf.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>
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <57c8eb93-895a-9c7e-cdea-27237c67b2b0@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 17:26:32 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0A5AD09E-8C94-4698-9418-EA0DE099FD07@csperkins.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/I55lUMHcCgIlW6geJjYw1b_6LF8>
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: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 21:26:44 -0000

On 3/11/19 1:43 PM, Colin Perkins wrote:

>>> §5 has several changes to normative language. Most are okay, but I think the change from “all MUST appear in exactly the order given here” to “all must appear” weakens it too much, and I’d prefer that to remain a MUST.
>>
>> The reason for changing that is because the *normative* specification of the ordering is from the ABNF. The text here is explanatory and non-normative. (Note that a couple of paragraphs prior to this is a new statement emphasizing that the ABNF is normative.)
> 
> Sorry, but I think this change is problematic. The text needs to use normative language that is consistent with the ABNF.

My thinking is that we don't like to have redundant normative 
specification, just in case they aren't consistent. The ABNF is 
normative. This section is of necessity an approximation.

But I defer to Ben or whoever.

>>> 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.

	Thanks,
	Paul