Re: [MMUSIC] Draft new version: draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-02

["Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)" <[e-mail]>]

I’ve read the document and believe it is now ready for WGLC.

Gonzalo


> On 12/17/15, 8:09 AM, "Christer Holmberg" <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bo Burman 
>> Sent: 10. joulukuuta 2015 11:14
>> To: Christer Holmberg; Paul Kyzivat; [e-mail]
>> Subject: RE: [MMUSIC] Draft new version: draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-02
>> 
>> MMUSIC,
>> 
>> The plan in Yokohama was to start moving towards WGLC after a few updates
>> were made.
>> 
>> It seems to me that this document is now fairly stable. I assume the
>> changes mentioned below will be included in an -04 (-03 already posted).
>> 
>> Please read the document and comment whether or not it is ready for WGLC.
>> 
>> /Bo & Flemming
>> MMUSIC co-chairs
>> 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: mmusic [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Christer
>>> Holmberg
>>> Sent: den 8 december 2015 22:13
>>> To: Paul Kyzivat; [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Draft new version: draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-02
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>>> Section 8 consists solely of section 8.1. The 8.1 is redundant.
>>> 
>>> Correct. There was supposed to be a chapter 8.2 too, and when it was
>>> removed I forgot to fix the rest.
>>> 
>>>> Section 10 looks a little weird, because it has the section numbering
>>>> for the updated documents mixed >in with the section numbering of
>>>> this document. I'm not sure of long term plans. Is this stuff to
>>>>> eventually be removed once everyone agrees on what is to be done? Or
>>>> is it to remain? If it is going to >be removed, then what you have is
>>>> fine. If it is going to stay, then I think something needs to be done
>>>>> to make the presentation less confusing. (E.g., indent it and/or
>>>> move into an
>>>> appendix.)
>>> 
>>> I don't think it is going to be removed. This document updates the
>>> listed RFC, and the updated text will not be anywhere else (unless
>>> someone decides to incorporate the text into a bis, which at least is
>>> not my intention).
>>> 
>>> We can look at the section numbering, and see whether it can be made
>>> more clear. Perhaps the section number of the updated sections don't
>>> need to be in the updated text, as we already say which sections are
>>> updated.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Christer
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 12/8/15 2:48 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> A new version (-02) of draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-02 has been
>>> submitted.
>>>> 
>>>> Note that this version now suggests updates to RFC 5763 (SRTP-DTLS)
>>>> and RFC 7341 (UDPTL-DTLS), so I encourage people to take a look.
>>>> 
>>>> In addition, there is some new text about re-using
>>>> connection-oriented
>>>> (read: acknowledged packet delivery) for establishing a new DTLS
>>>> association.
>>>> 
>>>> You can also find the document on github:
>>>> https://github.com/cdh4u/draft-dtls-sdp
>>>> 
>>>> (NOTE: This is my personal repo, as I am not aware of any "official"
>>>> MMUSIC repo)
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> 
>>>> Christer
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> mmusic mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mmusic mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mmusic mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic