Re: [MMUSIC] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-11

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

I've followed this document closely throughout its development.
In preparation for this message I reviewed the document again. I found 
some things that need to be addressed:

1) MAJOR: Section 5.1.1.3 and various other places:

I can find nothing here or elsewhere in the document that says whether 
the the stream id in an offer is the id on which the offerer will 
receive, or the ID on which it will send. Of course this is irrelevant 
if both ends agree to use the same id, but that isn't required.

For this to interact properly with attributes for individual streams (in 
dcsa) I think it will be necessary for this to be consistent with the 
say SDP negotiates media sections - namely that the SDP in an offer 
identifies where the offerer wants to *receive* the media.

It will probably require changes in a variety of places to get this 
sorted out.

2) MINOR: Section 5.1.1 says:

    The intention in exchanging these attributes is to create, on two
    peers, without use of DCEP [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol], matched
    pairs of oppositely directed data channels having the same set of
    attributes.  It is assumed that the data channel properties
    (reliable/partially reliable, ordered/unordered) are suitable per the
    subprotocol transport requirements.

In this, "matched pairs of oppositely directed data channels" is 
improper terminology. Each channel *is* a matched pair, of oppositely 
directed SCTP streams.

3) MINOR: Section 5.1.2 says:

    In the SDP, each data channel declaration MAY also be followed by
    other media level SDP attributes, ...

I'm concerned with "followed", because that imposes an ordering 
requirement on attributes. Generally there is no ordering requirement on 
SDP attributes other than that they up front if they are session level 
or follow a particular m= line if they are media-level.

Certainly it will be more readable to group these things in a logical 
way, but I don't think it should be required. So I suggest changing 
"followed" to "accompanied".

4) NIT: IdNits reports 1 error and 8 warnings. These need to be addressed.

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 1/16/17 6:45 AM, Bo Burman wrote:
> MMUSIC,
>
>
>
> This email starts a one week WG last call on version -11 of this draft
> that ends on January 23, 2017.
>
> There was a previous WG last call on version -09 that resulted in some
> minor document updates.
>
>
> The intended status of this document is standards track (Proposed Standard).
>
> Please review and provide any comments you may have on the document.
> Comments should be sent to the document authors and the MMUSIC WG list.
> If you review the document but do not have any comments, please send a
> note to that effect as well.
>
>
>
> Please also forward this WGLC to any other interested parties who may be
> able to review the draft, asking them to also direct their comments to
> the authors and the list as above.
>
>
>
> The document can be retrieved here:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg/
>
>
>
> Thank you!
>
>
>
>         Bo Burman (MMUSIC co-chair)
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>