Re: [MMUSIC] Mod to draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc2326bis-40

Hello Magnus,

Yes unfortunately it doesn't seem to be an easy fix. I'd be happy if the 
RFC number was released ahead of time. However my understanding that 
this wasn't done any more (not that I would complain if they did release 
one).

Regards, Christian

On 27/01/2015 3:15 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Unfortunately I don't see an easy way to address this issue.
>
> So the reference to the circuit breakers draft is clearly normative as
> it specifies a minimal behaviour for avoiding persistent congestion from
> RTP based media controlled by RTSP. So reclassifying it to informative,
> basically would remove the requirement on having such a mechanism. Which
> in my view is not acceptable.
>
> I do wonder if one can get the RFC-editor to release the RFC number
> ahead of time? I think it might be worth asking nicely from the chairs.
> After all the document is in the queue. There is only one document
> missing and that is at least a WG document. And one that is needed by
> multiple WGs. Thus, it will happen.
>
> Or isn't that sufficient for you Christian?
>
> Cheers
>
> Magnus
>
> On 2015-01-20 22:32, Flemming Andreasen wrote:
>> We'll probably need to hear from Magnus as well (since he's the main
>> author). I'm not sure if he is back from leave yet or not.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> -- Flemming
>>
>> On 1/14/15 3:55 AM, Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht) wrote:
>>> No objections from my side because the requirement as such is still
>>> sufficiently covered.
>>> Thus, would support that change proposal.
>>> -Albrecht
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: mmusic [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christian
>>> Groves
>>> Sent: Mittwoch, 14. Januar 2015 03:10
>>> To: mmusic mailing list; Roni Even
>>> Subject: [MMUSIC] Mod to draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc2326bis-40
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc2326bis-40
>>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc2326bis/> has
>>> been in state MISSREF for some time now. See below:
>>>
>>> 2014-02-11    draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc2326bis-40.txt [C214]
>>> MISSREF*R(1G)
>>> REF    draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers    NOT-RECEIVED
>>>        draft-ietf-mmusic-rtsp-nat    IN-QUEUE
>>> H. Schulzrinne, A. Rao, R. Lanphier, M. Westerlund, M. Stiemerling, Ed.
>>> "Real Time Streaming Protocol 2.0 (RTSP)"
>>> Bytes: 764018
>>> Working Group: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control
>>>
>>> There is still a dependency on draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit breakers
>>> which is holding up an RFC number being assigned. My understanding is
>>> that it could be quite awhile before the circuit breakers draft is
>>> approved.
>>>
>>> There's only one reference to the circuit breakers draft in C.1.6.3
>>> "Bit-rate adaption", i.e.
>>>       To ensure that the implementation's adaptation mechanism has a well
>>>       defined outer envelope, all implementations using a non-congestion
>>>       controlled unicast transport protocol, like UDP, MUST implement
>>>       Multimedia Congestion Control: Circuit Breakers for Unicast RTP
>>>       Sessions [I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers].
>>>
>>> I wondering if it would be possible to change this slightly so that
>>> the circuit breakers draft becomes informative whilst still keeping
>>> the congestion control requirement as a MUST? i.e.
>>> "... all implementations using a non-congestion controlled unicast
>>> transport protocol, like UDP, MUST implement multimedia congestion
>>> control. For example: by utilising the mechanism defined by
>>> "Multimedia Congestion Control: Circuit Breakers for Unicast RTP
>>> Sessions [I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers]."
>>>
>>> This would mean that RTSP2.0 could finally become an RFC.
>>>
>>> Would this be possible?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Christian
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>> .
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mmusic mailing list
>> mmusic@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>>
>