[MMUSIC] RFC 4856 is in the correct RFC category - Errata query? [was RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729-04.txt> (Offer/Answer Considerations for G723 Annex A and G729 Annex B) to Proposed Standard]

["Parthasarathi R" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Casner/Ari/Flemming,

As part of draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729-04 draft last call comments, the
following comments from sm are relevant to RFC 4856 category 

1) 
<snip1>
The fact that RFC 4856 is
> published as a Proposed Standard does not mean that it is the correct
> status.  There are a lot of oddities in the IETF Stream.  I prefer
> not to ask about those oddities. :-)
</snip1>

The authors of draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729-04 (Muthu & Myself) are of
the opinion that RFC 4856 is in the correct category as it describes about
codec like G.723 and G.729.

2) 
<snip2>
draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729-04 mentions G723 Annex A and G729
> Annex B.  There aren't any references for them.  
</snip2>

draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729-04 updates RFC 4856 w.r.t offer/answer(O/A)
mechanism of G723 Annex A and G729 Annex B. RFC 4856 does not have reference
for G723 Annex A and G729 Annex B. IMO if the codec reference has to be
mentioned,  it has to be mentioned in RFC 4856 and not required in
draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729-04 as it updates only O/A of RFC 4856. 

Thanks
Partha


> -----Original Message-----
> From: SM [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 12:57 AM
> To: Parthasarathi R
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: 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
> 
> Hi Partha,
> 
> I forgot to mention that I am not subscribed to the MMUSIC mailing
> list.
> 
> At 10:27 19-11-2013, Parthasarathi R wrote:
> >I have clarified all your below queries. Could you please let me know
> in
> >case you still see any specific issue with the draft.
> 
> In my humble opinion RFC 4856 is more about a media type registration
> request instead of a technical specification about
> interoperability.  It is mentioned in Section 1 of that RFC that it
> updates the media type registrations.  The fact that RFC 4856 is
> published as a Proposed Standard does not mean that it is the correct
> status.  There are a lot of oddities in the IETF Stream.  I prefer
> not to ask about those oddities. :-)
> 
> draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729-04 mentions G723 Annex A and G729
> Annex B.  There aren't any references for them.  The problem with the
> draft is that it builds upon RFC 4856 instead of the technical
> specification where the protocol is specified.  Is G723 Annex A and
> G729 Annex B needed to implement what the draft tries to do?  In my
> opinion, yes.
> 
> The document shepherd write-up has the following question:
> 
>    "Why is this the proper type of RFC?"
> 
> The answer provided is:
> 
>   "Proposed Standard.  The title page notes the document as Standards
> Track"
> 
> That does not answer the question.
> 
> Regards,
> -sm