[MMUSIC] 4566bis outstanding issues

"Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com> Fri, 06 June 2014 21:19 UTC

Return-Path: <abegen@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35ABF1A02A6 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Jun 2014 14:19:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.152
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.152 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5kClz9qcn_vn for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Jun 2014 14:19:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A9871A0274 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Jun 2014 14:19:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2388; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1402089558; x=1403299158; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=i0JRmWvwq+zEpoyzNTFYftCWTP+BIb95V1lGxO8A3cc=; b=Y6ul0/qonvup8aF4R5Tg5A0qG8fT3laDzQ5bU6q7MBRiaOyLztjRKVaa L7fHLRH6fTAyzdwXcutKLNOaAZpMAoXl+h6aoydsP0Ee55pVE8DlfFsD9 W88urgL8vpNqxJmrEOPi/AGyq4ltdycVM0PpWyity3h+7BvB/uujrCC5l E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgMFAGovklOtJA2L/2dsb2JhbABPCoJpJIErxAkBgQcWdYQFAQQ6UQEqFEImAQQbE4gnAZ8BrlIXjXwLBggCAgEeg2OBFgStYYM8gi8
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.98,991,1392163200"; d="scan'208";a="50953305"
Received: from alln-core-6.cisco.com ([]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Jun 2014 21:19:18 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com []) by alln-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s56LJIYY013730 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Jun 2014 21:19:18 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com ([fe80::747b:83e1:9755:d453]) by xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 6 Jun 2014 16:19:17 -0500
From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com>
To: "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: 4566bis outstanding issues
Thread-Index: Ac+By1gnkWozapFRScuYYj7YauRbWg==
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 21:19:16 +0000
Message-ID: <C15918F2FCDA0243A7C919DA7C4BE9940ECF6C11@xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/J4HjwVsC6EL85gTj4bD7fob--DI
Subject: [MMUSIC] 4566bis outstanding issues
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 06 Jun 2014 21:19:27 -0000

Hi everyone

I went thru the mail archives since 01/2012 and tried to list the issues that seem to be unresolved at this point. I can put them in the tracker but I wanna provide a summary first.

For some of the issues below, no solution has been proposed. For the rest, there was no agreement on what to do. Here it goes:

1) 4566bis needs to provide ABNF syntax for all of the attributes 4566 defined. 

Comments: This was discussed again in a side meeting in London and there was not a consensus whether we actually needed this. 

2) 4566bis should update the format of the IANA registries to reflect the dependency between addrtype and net type.

Comments: There does not seem an agreement on this but it looks to be an easy fix.

3) Section 8.2.4 defines the IANA registry and populates it with the attributes defined in 4566, however, Section 8.2.4 does not specify the name or format of the table.

Comments: No text has been proposed or agreed but seems to be an easy fix if we wanna do this.

4) 4566bis does not make the registration of new network or address types mandatory. Section 8.2.6 and 8.2.7.

Comments: If we agree that this should be mandatory, we can change the text.

5) Source-level attributes defined in 5576. Should these attributes be included in the same table structure in the IANA registry? 

Comments: This seems to be an organizational issue rather than a technical issue. If we agree we need this, we can take on this as well.

6) Should we add a new column called "registered network type" in the addrtype table in the IANA registry as not all address types are applicable for all network types? 

Comments: This is also an IANA fix that we can do in this bis document or in a separate document (with all the other IANA registry changes).

These are the issues I was able to identify. There is one more thing related to ICE and I sent an email about this to Marc Petit-Huguenin. As soon as he responds and depending on his answer, I might add one more issue.

If there are things I missed, please let me know. The chairs and editors would like to close these issues and finalize 4566bis soon.