[MMUSIC] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-mmusic-t140-usage-data-channel-12: (with DISCUSS)

[Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Magnus Westerlund has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mmusic-t140-usage-data-channel-12: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-t140-usage-data-channel/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 4.1:

   The offerer and answerer MUST NOT include the max-retr or the max-
   time attribute parameters in the 'dcmap' attribute.

This is just an example of a issue that is exists in basically all of the RFC
2119 terminolgy using sentences in this section. The formulation is that the
offerer or answerer must do something with attributes or parameters of the
dcmap attribute. However, it is not stated to be specific to the dcmap
attribute that specifically specify something for a T.140 SCTP stream. I think
that scope restriction needs to be made more explicit for these RFC 2119
statements. Else they would have applicability as soon as one support this
specification.