Re: [MMUSIC] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis-32

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Mon, 11 March 2019 23:23 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50FAA131258 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 16:23:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.98
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.98 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nostrum.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P8sWhieorczT for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 16:23:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39FFB13122C for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 16:22:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.19.251.38] (mobile-166-172-59-102.mycingular.net [166.172.59.102]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x2BNMgQJ003955 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 11 Mar 2019 18:22:45 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1552346565; bh=rziuOfnQ9sHEcWF1gPsQtyRGxJ+znYHFO0pzHXJiSOw=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=T562zylUY/b+PxW3DrzRIrh2KZ1vvgogJaR81Ag5qj8WtoDZTyinAoiNTAachdQmL 8HqQT7rUnnbgAubHGKXkG0L2dTmrliqSezXPt3v0Rw2aUw/igXcZu5rKP6ldjsuVTu M/hJu0uoya1A4KV+xwfyRNLVOPIVXnMlshBfMhxs=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host mobile-166-172-59-102.mycingular.net [166.172.59.102] claimed to be [10.19.251.38]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16D57)
In-Reply-To: <57c8eb93-895a-9c7e-cdea-27237c67b2b0@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 19:22:35 -0400
Cc: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>, mmusic@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F02E04D0-EEEA-4908-9035-85A321B890CC@nostrum.com>
References: <04CAFF8C-B6ED-4B7D-9FDD-ED37DCA2848B@nostrum.com> <2f297a3c-39d4-cb99-65f4-f0bcd072306a@alum.mit.edu> <C054EF10-FE82-4E9D-9ABA-5C2E6090F0C9@csperkins.org> <6f0d20c2-0397-2bbd-5671-8b7ea0d8c98d@alum.mit.edu> <0A5AD09E-8C94-4698-9418-EA0DE099FD07@csperkins.org> <57c8eb93-895a-9c7e-cdea-27237c67b2b0@alum.mit.edu>
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/TaEVwLwF2VLh4VKMSWaQIKPZKrg>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis-32
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mmusic/>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 23:23:10 -0000


Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 11, 2019, at 5:26 PM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> On 3/11/19 1:43 PM, Colin Perkins wrote:
> 
>>>> §5 has several changes to normative language. Most are okay, but I think the change from “all MUST appear in exactly the order given here” to “all must appear” weakens it too much, and I’d prefer that to remain a MUST.
>>> 
>>> The reason for changing that is because the *normative* specification of the ordering is from the ABNF. The text here is explanatory and non-normative. (Note that a couple of paragraphs prior to this is a new statement emphasizing that the ABNF is normative.)
>> Sorry, but I think this change is problematic. The text needs to use normative language that is consistent with the ABNF.
> 
> My thinking is that we don't like to have redundant normative specification, just in case they aren't consistent. The ABNF is normative. This section is of necessity an approximation.
> 
> But I defer to Ben or whoever.

I agree with both of you. :-) 

That is, we should avoid duplication normative requirements when possible, because it increases the chance of  spec errors. But we should still try to make sure the sections agree.

> 
>>>> This is a normative requirement of RTP, however. If we want to avoid normative examples, which I’d agree makes sense, then this needs to be rewritten as just “An RTP-based system in recvonly mode SHOULD…”.
>>> 
>>> That is the way it was. The change from "SHOULD" to "should" was to make it non-normative.
>>> 
>>> Or were you requesting to remove “e.g."?
>> Remove the “e.g.”, yes, but also change “should” back to “SHOULD”.
> 
> I thought the point was that the RTP specs are normative and this is only an example, and so shouldn't be normative.

I do not have the text in front of me, but I agree that examples should not be stated normatively.

Thanks! 

Ben.

> 
>    Thanks,
>    Paul
>