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

["Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi SM,

|-----Original Message-----
|From: SM [mailto:[e-mail]]
|Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 5:33 AM
|To: Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal); Ari Keränen
|Cc: Flemming Andreasen (fandreas); [e-mail]
|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
|
|Hi Muthu,
|At 09:08 04-12-2013, Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal) wrote:
|>Yes, is referring to that section of RFC4856. However, the issue is
|>not the registration itself -- it is to do with the missing
|>offer/answer considerations for the registered media parameters that
|>impact interoperability. As an example, RFC4352 registers AMR-WB+
|>and then describes the offer/answer model considerations for the
|>parameters it registers.
|
|I'll comment below.
|
|>I don't think publishing it as an Informational RFC would improve
|>interoperability.
|
|I was looking forward to read the above argument. :-)
|
|The Introduction section of draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729-04
|mentions an issue which can affect interoperability.  It's a valid
|argument for choosing Standards Track.

We are on the same page here..

|
|I quote part of a message [1] from Keith Drage:
|
|   "I do believe draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729 normatively impacts the
|    usage of SDP in offer / answer usage and as such should be standards
|    track."
|
|That describes the problem the proposal tries to solve.  

And here as well..

|The proposal probably has to have some RFC 2119 key words (re.
|interoperability).  In my opinion the interoperability question does
|not fit in RFC 4856.  The issue is where to put the missing
|offer/answer considerations.  I took a quick look at several related
|RFCs and could not find the answer.  I suggest looking into what
|Keith Drage suggested.

Apparently, we have different opinions here. But, I don't see an issue with your/Kieth's opinion. I just responded to Kieth with the proposed changes to abstract and introduction.

|
|The registration is a separate issue.  In simple terms, a person can
|take a look at the registry and find the appropriate specification
|where the media parameters are defined.

Same as above..

|Maybe you could work from where the protocol is specified, explain
|the interoperability issue and propose the solution.  

I am not sure if you have read daft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729 fully, but the interoperability issue and the proposed solution is the crux of the draft -- this was also the focus of discussions in the WG and we didn't pay much attention to whether it really is an update to RFC4856 -:)

|I have not been able to determine whether a registration update is needed.  
|I'll suggest reading RFC 4855.

RFC4855 has no suggestions on that.

Muthu

|
|Regards,
|-sm
|
|1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/current/msg12856.html