[MMUSIC] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-mmusic-t140-usage-data-channel-13: (with COMMENT)

Martin Duke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Fri, 10 April 2020 15:53 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 6A5B93A0408; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 08:53:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Martin Duke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-mmusic-t140-usage-data-channel@ietf.org, mmusic-chairs@ietf.org, mmusic@ietf.org, Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com>, fandreas@cisco.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.126.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <158653403940.8821.17482385378253541469@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 08:53:59 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/IBBR1uC8aCexgWkZ2vgulBurcms>
Subject: [MMUSIC] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-mmusic-t140-usage-data-channel-13: (with 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: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 15:53:59 -0000

Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mmusic-t140-usage-data-channel-13: No Objection

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:


Thanks for the changes. I believe this substantially addresses my DISCUSS.

However, we've created a couple of nits:
- In Section 5.3, the MAY was added to the first paragraph instead of the
second. I don't object to having one in the first paragraph, but don't feel it
to be necessary. - In 5.4, "channels.As" needs a space in there.

Old comment (which has been addressed):
The Tsvarea review cites a few other places where the 2119 language is a little
loose, e.g. MUSTs with vague and unenforceable criteria.