Re: [MMUSIC] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis-34

Paul Kyzivat <> Tue, 09 April 2019 17:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CA781200C3; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 10:10:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l3l2akAdazbf; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 10:10:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 946BE12008C; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 10:10:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as pkyzivat@ALUM.MIT.EDU) by (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id x39H9at0005737 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 9 Apr 2019 13:09:37 -0400
To: Zitao Wang <>,
References: <>
From: Paul Kyzivat <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2019 13:10:58 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis-34
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2019 17:10:03 -0000

Thank you for the comments. I have some questions:

On 4/8/19 2:37 AM, Zitao Wang via Datatracker wrote:
> Reviewer: Zitao Wang
> Review result: Has Issues
> Summary:    This memo defines the Session Description Protocol (SDP).  SDP is
> intended for describing multimedia sessions for the purposes of session
> announcement, session invitation, and other forms of multimedia session
> initiation.  This document obsoletes RFC 4566. I think the document make sense
> and is written very clear, except some small nits: 

> # In Section 5, there are
> several terms that miss references, such as "US-ASCII subset of UTF-8",  "ASN.1
> or XDR", etc. 

There is already a reference to the definition of UTF-8 [RFC3629] in 
section 4.5. Do you think the reference needs to be included with every 
use? The US-ASCII subset of UTF-8 is also defined in RFC3629, so I am 
inclined to use the same reference for that. There are also a couple of 
uses of US-ASCII without mention of UTF-8. I'm inclined to change those 
to "the US-ASCII subset of UTF-8".

Regarding ASN.1 and XDR, I can add references if you think it important. 
But their use is very peripheral, and it isn't necessary to know what 
they are to read the text.

# s/session- specific/session-specific/

Regarding "session- specific" vs. "session-specific":

The context for this is:

"Attribute scopes in addition to media- and session- specific may also..."

The space was intentional so that there are equivalent constructions for 
"media" and "session". The intent is as a shorthand for:

"Attribute scopes in addition to media-specific and session-specific may 

To avoid confusion I think I'll just change to the latter.

# Suggest to add tags on
> "overview optional items" to identified now-obsolete items, such as "a=cat",
> "a=keywds", "k=".

I'm not clear what you want me to do. I guess you are suggesting adding 
something to the first figure in section 5.

I don't see how that would be possible for a=cat and a=keywds, since the 
figure doesn't mention individual attributes. While it is possible to 
add something for k=, IMO it is better to leave that level of detail to 
the complete description in section 5.12.

	Paul Kyzivat