[MMUSIC] Alissa Cooper's Yes on draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp-38: (with COMMENT)

[Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp-38: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS. Previous comments are still below. Note that
the "Obsoletes" header still appears although I thought Christer said he had
removed it.

-----

Since RFC 5245 is already obsolete, this document cannot obsolete it I don't
think. RFC 8445 references this document, so readers of that document will be
able to find this one.

Section 2: Please use the precise boilerplate from RFC 8174.

Section 4.1: It's not clear why IESG Approval is included as one of the
registration policies to extend the candidate attribute. Does the WG anticipate
cases where IETF Review will not be appropriate? And I agree with Alexey that a
registry needs to be defined in the IANA Considerations section.

Section 8: Agree with Ben about adding references to ICE and SDP security
considerations.

Section 9.1.1: s/[e-mail]/[e-mail]/

Section 9.2: Further to Alexey's point, the minimal information necessary for
the registry to function should be collected and/or published.