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

wangzitao <wangzitao@huawei.com> Wed, 10 April 2019 03:03 UTC

Return-Path: <wangzitao@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AED64120143; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 20:03:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CzGYKXcHHJzz; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 20:03:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F6691200B3; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 20:03:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml709-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id A21FE43011F2E397E630; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 04:03:54 +0100 (IST)
Received: from lhreml707-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.56) by lhreml709-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 04:03:51 +0100
Received: from lhreml707-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.56) by lhreml707-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 04:03:51 +0100
Received: from DGGEMM406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.214) by lhreml707-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA_P256) id 15.1.1713.5 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 04:03:51 +0100
Received: from DGGEMM527-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.6.122]) by DGGEMM406-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.3.20.214]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 11:03:42 +0800
From: wangzitao <wangzitao@huawei.com>
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>, "ops-dir@ietf.org" <ops-dir@ietf.org>
CC: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis.all@ietf.org>, "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [MMUSIC] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis-34
Thread-Index: AdTvRvhYZIMUjF3YT5uvMjWfubvzkw==
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 03:03:42 +0000
Message-ID: <E6BC9BBCBCACC246846FC685F9FF41EA2D9A1635@DGGEMM527-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.134.142.117]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/MnbRqHySDkh_EvJa-mBxPBcF9PA>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis-34
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mmusic/>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 03:03:59 -0000

Hi Paul,

Please find my comments at [MW].

B.R.
-Michael 

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu] 
发送时间: 2019年4月10日 1:11
收件人: wangzitao <wangzitao@huawei.com>om>; ops-dir@ietf.org
抄送: ietf@ietf.org; draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis.all@ietf.org; mmusic@ietf.org
主题: Re: [MMUSIC] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis-34

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.
[MW]: I am OK if it is not commonly used.

# 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 also..."

To avoid confusion I think I'll just change to the latter.
[MW]: I agree.

# 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.
[MW]: Yes, IMO, adding some tag/description to the figure is better.

I don't see how that would be possible for a=cat and a=keywds, since the figure doesn't mention individual attributes. 
[MW]: Agree. For a=cat and a=keywds, it is difficult to show on the figure.

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.
[MW]: Maybe it can be updated as following:

      Before :
       k=* (encryption key)
      After:
       k=* (encryption key, this line is obsoleted)

	Thanks,
	Paul Kyzivat