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

On 4/14/19 1:37 AM, Roni Even (A) wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> Section 8.2.4.1 of https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis-33#section-8.2.4 (normative reference in SDPNEG) registers usage level dcsa and dcsa (subprotocol) for the IANA att-field and point at the data-channel-sdpneg document for the definition. I think it will be simple to keep as is and just have the definition  in sdpneg but I have no strong feeling. So just decide, if you change RFC4566bis , we will need to keep section 9.3 in data-channel-sdpneg and just clarify what we register.

Duh, you are right. I forgot we put the dependency in there.

	Sorry,
	Paul

> Roni
>   
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mmusic [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat
> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 7:32 PM
> To: mmusic@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Addressing comment from IANA on draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-25
> 
> On 4/11/19 6:34 AM, Roni Even (A) wrote:
>> 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
> 
> ISTM we actually got a little ahead of ourselves in 4566bis by mentioning dcsa and msrp-usage-datachannel.
> 
> While 4566bis reorganizes the attribute registries so that we don't need a new registry for dcsa, is is draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg
> that defines the dcsa usage level. The publication of it should result in addition of a reference to it in the attribute registry. So I think we need an IANA action just to accomplish that.
> 
> And maybe the references to dcsa and msrp-usage-data-channel should be removed from 4566bis if it isn't too late to do so.
> 
> I don't find section 5.2.1 to be an appropriate place for this kind of information.
> 
> 	Thanks,
> 	Paul
> 
>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> 