Re: [MMUSIC] Comments on IESG Changes in the -cs draft ? [Fwd: Protocol Action: 'Session Description Protocol (SDP) Extension For Setting Audio and Video Media Streams Over Circuit-Switched Bearers In The Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN)' to Pr...

The DTMF approach is spectacularly irritating. The user often gets an earful of DTMF and is really confused about why they got DTMF. 

I don't care about the MUST implement all three but I think it is a bad idea to say that the offer SHOULD use DTMF. I'd like to see DTMF be a "MAY" use in the offer. 

On uuie, it's might be worth noting that a valid reason not to use uuie in the offer is that something else has already used theses bits. 

On Aug 9, 2013, at 4:10 PM, Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com> wrote:

> Greetings MMUSIC
> 
> As you can see per the below, the IESG approved the Circuit-Switched Bearers draft for publication, however before doing so, they requested a couple of changes. The resulting approved document can be found at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs-21
> 
> One of the changes introduced resulted in all 3 correlation mechanisms now being mandatory-to-implement (previously they were not):
> <quote>
>    Implementations MUST support the three correlation mechanisms
>    specified in 
> Section 5.2.3.2, Section 5.2.3.3 and Section 5.2.3.4
> ,
>    and SHOULD include all supported mechanisms the initial Offer.
> 
> </quote>
> Since this is a non-trivial change that has not been discussed by the WG (and we know of at least one person having expressed concerns with it off-line), we are hereby solicting the WG participants for input on changes introduced as a result of the IESG review with a focus on the above. In doing so, please keep in mind that we are developing standards that work in the general Internet. 
> 
> 
> The following URL provides a diff-file showing the changes resulting from the IESG review:
>     http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs-18.txt&url2=draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs-21.txt
> 
> Comments are due by August 23 (two weeks from today)
> 
> Thanks 
> 
> -- Flemming (MMUSIC co-chair)
> 
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject:	[MMUSIC] Protocol Action: 'Session Description Protocol (SDP) Extension For Setting Audio and Video Media Streams Over Circuit-Switched Bearers In The Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN)' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs-21.txt)
> Date:	Mon, 1 Jul 2013 11:56:23 -0700
> From:	The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
> To:	IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
> CC:	mmusic chair <mmusic-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, mmusic mailing list <mmusic@ietf.org>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
> 
> The IESG has approved the following document:
> - 'Session Description Protocol (SDP) Extension For Setting Audio and
>    Video Media Streams Over Circuit-Switched Bearers In The Public
>    Switched Telephone Network (PSTN)'
>   (draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs-21.txt) as Proposed Standard
> 
> This document is the product of the Multiparty Multimedia Session Control
> Working Group.
> 
> The IESG contact persons are Gonzalo Camarillo and Richard Barnes.
> 
> A URL of this Internet Draft is:
> 
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Technical Summary
> *
> 
> The document describes use cases, requirements, and protocol extensions
> for using the Session Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answer model for
> establishing audio and video media streams over circuit-switched bearers
> in the Publich Switched Telephone Network (PSTN)
> 
> *Working Group Summary
> *
> 
> The WG had some discussion around the format to use for E.164 numbers
> and whether to align this with the existing definition in RFC 3108. The
> RFC 3108 definition was seen as deficient and the WG agreed it was
> better to align with relevant parts of the tel URI format defined in RFC
> 3966, not least since SDP address types are defined in the context of a
> particular network type, and hence RFC 3108 compatibility is not a
> concern (the implication is that the "E164" address type may differ
> between network types in SDP).
> 
> *Document Quality
> *
> 
> There are currently no known implementations of the draft, however the
> draft is a dependency for 3GPP, so future implementations are expected.
> 
> The document has received good overall review in the WG, some of which
> resulted in changes to the detailed specification. The document has been
> reviewed in detail several times, including of the last few versions.
> The major contributors to these as well as earlier discussions are
> listed in the Acknowledgements section of the document.
> 
> 
> *Personnel
> *
> 
> Document Shepherd: Flemming Andreasen
> Responsible AD: Gonzalo Camarillo 
> _______________________________________________
> 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