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

Sm,

I have clarified all your below queries. Could you please let me know in
case you still see any specific issue with the draft.

Thanks
Partha

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mmusic-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Parthasarathi R
> Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 10:45 PM
> To: 'SM'; 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
> 
> Sm,
> 
> Please read inline.
> 
> Thanks
> Partha/Muthu
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: mmusic-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On
> > Behalf Of SM
> > Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 9:07 AM
> > To: 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
> >
> > At 06:17 30-10-2013, The IESG wrote:
> > >The IESG has received a request from the Multiparty Multimedia
> Session
> > >Control WG (mmusic) to consider the following document:
> > >- 'Offer/Answer Considerations for G723 Annex A and G729 Annex B'
> > >   <draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729-04.txt> as Proposed Standard
> > >
> > >The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
> solicits
> > >final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to
> the
> > >ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-11-27. Exceptionally, comments
> may
> > be
> >
> > I read this draft quickly.  According to the Abstract:
> >
> >    "RFC4856 describes the annexa parameter for G723 and the annexb
> >     parameter for G729, G729D and G729E. However, the specification
> > does
> >     not describe the offerer and answerer behavior when the value of
> > the
> >     annexa or annexb parameter does not match in the Session
> > Description
> >     protocol(SDP) offer and answer.  This document provides the
> offer/
> >     answer considerations for these parameters and updates RFC4856."
> >
> > RFC 4856 is about media type registration of payload formats.
> <Partha> Agreed </Partha>
> 
>  The
> > IESG approval mentioned that the document "specify the procedure to
> > register RTP payload formats as audio, video or other media subtype
> > names".  The RFC does not specify the AnnexA parameter for G723.
> 
> <Partha> Agreed. RFC4856 describes AnnexA parameter for G723. </Partha>
> 
>  I
> > took a quick look at the RFCs being referenced.  They are about media
> > type registrations.  It is doubtful whether they even qualify for
> > Proposed Standard.
> <Partha> RFC4856 is published as proposed standard in IETF </Partha>
> 
> >
> > The premise on which the work in this draft is built is lacking.
> <Partha> The premise on which the work in this draft is already well
> described in the abstract itself </Partha>
> 
>   The
> > draft mentions
> > G723 Annex A without providing any reference to the
> > specification.
> <Partha> G723 annexa SDP attribute is defined in RFC 4856. </Partha>
> 
>  In my opinion the draft needs more work for it to be
> > a Proposed Standard.
> <Partha> Could you please list the work which has to be done for this
> draft
> </Partha>
> 
> It doesn't look like there has been any
> > discussion about whether there are IPR issues affecting
> > implementations.
> >
> 
> <Partha> The authors are not aware of any IPR related to this issue.
> This
> has been communicated to MMUSIC WG Chairs </Partha>
> 
> > Regards,
> > -sm
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mmusic mailing list
> > mmusic@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic