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

I think the problem here originates with RFC 4856.

All RFC 4856 does is create IANA registrations within SDP.

It does not contain any requirements, except by implication, of how those registrations are used. An IANA registration, per se, cannot contain any normative requirements, all it is a list of assigned values.

As such for the scope that RFC 4856 seeks to cover, it should not have been standards track.

As it is now specified I do not believe draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729-04.txt updates RFC 4856. It does not change any of the IANA registrations, and that is pretty much all the scope of RFC 4856. If there is an update at all created by draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729, I suspect it is to RFC 3551 as these are the documents that actually specify such media types can be used within the SDP. However my preference would be to not have this document do any update.

I do believe draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729 normatively impacts the usage of SDP in offer / answer usage and as such should be standards track.

I believe the abstract of draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729 could be improved to reflect this.

Regards

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mmusic [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of 
> Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)
> Sent: 04 December 2013 17:08
> To: SM; Ari Keränen
> Cc: Flemming Andreasen (fandreas); mmusic@ietf.org
> 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 SM,
> 
> |-----Original Message-----
> |From: SM [mailto:sm@resistor.net]
> |Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 9:41 PM
> |To: Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal); Ari Keränen
> |Cc: Flemming Andreasen (fandreas); mmusic@ietf.org
> |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 Muthu,
> |At 22:28 03-12-2013, Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal) wrote:
> |>Sorry, not clear to me. Can you provide some examples?
> |
> |As an example:
> |
> |   "The reproduction of the [RFC4695] IANA considerations 
> section appears
> |    directly below.
> |
> |    This section makes a series of requests to IANA.  The IANA has
> |    completed registration/assignments of the below requests."
> |
> |Please note that I picked one at random.
> |
> |>Also, draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729-04 doesn't need any 
> IANA action 
> |>(see the IANA Considerations section). So, why should it be 
> published 
> |>as an Informational RFC?
> |
> |The issue (using the word loosely) is that the draft is 
> referring to a 
> |registration request in Section 1.1 of RFC 4856 which is about IANA 
> |Considerations.
> 
> Yes, is referring to that section of RFC4856. However, the 
> issue is not the registration itself -- it is to do with the 
> missing offer/answer considerations for the registered media 
> parameters that impact interoperability. As an example, 
> RFC4352 registers AMR-WB+ and then describes the offer/answer 
> model considerations for the parameters it registers. 
> 
> |My argument is that the working group has not provide an explanation 
> |about why the proposal should be published on the Standards Track.  
> |Instead of objecting to the publication as a RFC I suggested 
> publishing 
> |the proposal as an Informational RFC.
> 
> I don't think publishing it as an Informational RFC would 
> improve interoperability.
> 
> Muthu
> 
> |
> |Regards,
> |-sm
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
> 