Re: [MMUSIC] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis-32

Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> Thu, 14 March 2019 16:26 UTC

Return-Path: <csp@csperkins.org>
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 59D15124B0C for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 09:26:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 tyDsu27wyC79 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 09:26:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from haggis.mythic-beasts.com (haggis.mythic-beasts.com [IPv6:2a00:1098:0:86:1000:0:2:1]) (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 8FF6D12958B for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 09:26:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [130.209.157.49] (port=51252 helo=glaroam2-156-134.wireless.gla.ac.uk) by haggis.mythic-beasts.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <csp@csperkins.org>) id 1h4TBk-0004YT-RH; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:26:37 +0000
From: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
Message-Id: <E3432555-850A-4767-9BB9-211A12843EA0@csperkins.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_77D5EB5A-F5F1-41C5-96CC-D8A10AE66D64"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:26:36 +0000
In-Reply-To: <4ecf7883-87d5-c853-3f9a-f943232b5530@alum.mit.edu>
Cc: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, mmusic@ietf.org
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
References: <04CAFF8C-B6ED-4B7D-9FDD-ED37DCA2848B@nostrum.com> <2f297a3c-39d4-cb99-65f4-f0bcd072306a@alum.mit.edu> <C054EF10-FE82-4E9D-9ABA-5C2E6090F0C9@csperkins.org> <6f0d20c2-0397-2bbd-5671-8b7ea0d8c98d@alum.mit.edu> <0A5AD09E-8C94-4698-9418-EA0DE099FD07@csperkins.org> <57c8eb93-895a-9c7e-cdea-27237c67b2b0@alum.mit.edu> <F02E04D0-EEEA-4908-9035-85A321B890CC@nostrum.com> <8ECE1C75-95E1-47C4-B642-AE4F8061F563@csperkins.org> <2432bf01-64de-2132-b4bc-ab5d51d1773d@alum.mit.edu> <AEB1F98C-F562-4810-9892-14F7C5526CED@csperkins.org> <4ecf7883-87d5-c853-3f9a-f943232b5530@alum.mit.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 4
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/Nj2DMLcbAWrX49a-of-4tK642KI>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis-32
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: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:26:45 -0000

> On 14 Mar 2019, at 16:23, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> On 3/14/19 11:02 AM, Colin Perkins wrote:
>>> On 12 Mar 2019, at 15:41, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>> On 3/12/19 7:08 AM, Colin Perkins wrote:
>>>>>>>>> This is a normative requirement of RTP, however. If we want to avoid normative examples, which I’d agree makes sense, then this needs to be rewritten as just “An RTP-based system in recvonly mode SHOULD…”.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> That is the way it was. The change from "SHOULD" to "should" was to make it non-normative.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Or were you requesting to remove “e.g."?
>>>>>>> Remove the “e.g.”, yes, but also change “should” back to “SHOULD”.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I thought the point was that the RTP specs are normative and this is only an example, and so shouldn't be normative.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I do not have the text in front of me, but I agree that examples should not be stated normatively.
>>>> This is documenting a perhaps unexpected interaction between SDP and RTP. That is, when set to recvonly in SDP, an RTP endpoint SHOULD send RTCP. I do think that it’s important that we spell this out clearly here, with normative language.
>>> 
>>> I'm neutral here whether its normative or not. If it is to be a normative SHOULD, can we please include some "unless" text indicating the conditions when it may be omitted? Better yet, turn it into an "if NOT x then MUST ..." form.
>> I don’t think I can summarise the rules around when RTCP is, or is not, to be sent as a simple condition. If more detail is needed, I suggest “An RTP-based system in recvonly mode SHOULD still send RTCP packets as described in [RFC3550] Section 6”.
> 
> I'll put this in if it is the consensus. But this appears to give license to someone to ignore RFC3550. (I have talked to people who have said "SHOULD isnt a firm requirement so I don't need to do it.)
> 
> If that SHOULD is changed to MUST, then it will still mean that RTCP can be avoided in whatever cases RFC3550 allows. Specifically:
> 
> "An RTP-based system in recvonly mode MUST still send RTCP packets as described in [RFC3550] Section 6.”


I’m happy for you to change this to a MUST in that manner.

-- 
Colin Perkins
https://csperkins.org/