Re: [MMUSIC] Comments on IESG Changes in the -cs draft ? [Fwd: Protocol Action: 'Session Description Protocol (SDP) Extension For Setting Audio and Video Media Streams Over Circuit-Switched Bearers In The Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN)' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs-21.txt)]

Wow.  I can kinda understand why they'd say that (interop reasons, presumably), but that's a big deal.  The 3 mechanisms are very different, with very different architectural and deployment implications.  I have a very hard time believing any of us would truly implement all three.  In fact, I don't truly believe anyone would.

So... I hate to do this, but can the authors summarize the history of how we got 3 mechanisms to begin with, and who would really implement them all?

Or to put it another way, instead of specifying all 3, would it be impossible to take a step back and reconsider the real motivating use-case (which as far as I know is 3GPP), and only specify the one they need/use?

-hadriel

On Aug 9, 2013, at 6:10 PM, Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com> wrote:

> Greetings MMUSIC
> 
> As you can see per the below, the IESG approved the Circuit-Switched Bearers draft for publication, however before doing so, they requested a couple of changes. The resulting approved document can be found at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs-21
> 
> One of the changes introduced resulted in all 3 correlation mechanisms now being mandatory-to-implement (previously they were not):
> <quote>
>    Implementations MUST support the three correlation mechanisms
>    specified in 
> Section 5.2.3.2, Section 5.2.3.3 and Section 5.2.3.4
> ,
>    and SHOULD include all supported mechanisms the initial Offer.
> 
> </quote>
> Since this is a non-trivial change that has not been discussed by the WG (and we know of at least one person having expressed concerns with it off-line), we are hereby solicting the WG participants for input on changes introduced as a result of the IESG review with a focus on the above. In doing so, please keep in mind that we are developing standards that work in the general Internet. 
> 
> 
> The following URL provides a diff-file showing the changes resulting from the IESG review:
>     http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs-18.txt&url2=draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs-21.txt
> 
> Comments are due by August 23 (two weeks from today)
> 
> Thanks 
> 
> -- Flemming (MMUSIC co-chair)
> 
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject:	[MMUSIC] Protocol Action: 'Session Description Protocol (SDP) Extension For Setting Audio and Video Media Streams Over Circuit-Switched Bearers In The Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN)' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs-21.txt)
> Date:	Mon, 1 Jul 2013 11:56:23 -0700
> From:	The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
> To:	IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
> CC:	mmusic chair <mmusic-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, mmusic mailing list <mmusic@ietf.org>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
> 
> The IESG has approved the following document:
> - 'Session Description Protocol (SDP) Extension For Setting Audio and
>    Video Media Streams Over Circuit-Switched Bearers In The Public
>    Switched Telephone Network (PSTN)'
>   (draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs-21.txt) as Proposed Standard
> 
> This document is the product of the Multiparty Multimedia Session Control
> Working Group.
> 
> The IESG contact persons are Gonzalo Camarillo and Richard Barnes.
> 
> A URL of this Internet Draft is:
> 
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Technical Summary
> *
> 
> The document describes use cases, requirements, and protocol extensions
> for using the Session Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answer model for
> establishing audio and video media streams over circuit-switched bearers
> in the Publich Switched Telephone Network (PSTN)
> 
> *Working Group Summary
> *
> 
> The WG had some discussion around the format to use for E.164 numbers
> and whether to align this with the existing definition in RFC 3108. The
> RFC 3108 definition was seen as deficient and the WG agreed it was
> better to align with relevant parts of the tel URI format defined in RFC
> 3966, not least since SDP address types are defined in the context of a
> particular network type, and hence RFC 3108 compatibility is not a
> concern (the implication is that the "E164" address type may differ
> between network types in SDP).
> 
> *Document Quality
> *
> 
> There are currently no known implementations of the draft, however the
> draft is a dependency for 3GPP, so future implementations are expected.
> 
> The document has received good overall review in the WG, some of which
> resulted in changes to the detailed specification. The document has been
> reviewed in detail several times, including of the last few versions.
> The major contributors to these as well as earlier discussions are
> listed in the Acknowledgements section of the document.
> 
> 
> *Personnel
> *
> 
> Document Shepherd: Flemming Andreasen
> Responsible AD: Gonzalo Camarillo 
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> 
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic