[MMUSIC] Addressing comment from IANA on draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-25

["Roni Even (A)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,
I got the following comment from IANA:


Third, Section 9.3 of the current document appears to request the creation of a new registry in the Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters registry located at:



https://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-parameters/



IANA Question --> The new registry might be modeled upon the existing att-field (. . . level) registries but instead be a registry for att-field (dcsa level). Is this correct? Would the new registry have the same characteristics as other att-field registries on the registry page? Could the draft be revised to explicitly create the registry, if this is correct? Are there any initial registrations in this new registry?



My response was



We are not asking for a new registry,  see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis-33#section-8.5 for  the Reorganization of the att-field Registries.  I now think that this third action is not really needed since it is now defined in rfc4566bis section 8.5 and 8.4



So I suggest to remove section 9.3 and add to the end of section section 5.2.1





A data channel specific usage of a subprotocol attribute is expected to be specified

   in the same document that registers the subprotocol's identifier for

   data channel usage.



        SDP attributes that are only defined for use at the

   dcsa usage level, SHALL use the dcsa usage level when registering the

   attribute.  If existing media attributes are used in a datachannel

   subprotocol specific way, then a new dcsa usage level

   MUST be defined for the existing media attribute.  Where the SDP

  attribute is applicable to a particular subprotocol/s this SHALL also

   be registered by indicating the applicable subprotocol identifiers

   (see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis-34#section-8.5) along with the dcsa usage level.





Roni Even