Re: [MMUSIC] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729-04.txt> (Offer/Answer Considerations for G723 Annex A and G729 Annex B) to Proposed Standard

[SM <[e-mail]>]

At 06:17 30-10-2013, The IESG wrote:
>The IESG has received a request from the Multiparty Multimedia Session
>Control WG (mmusic) to consider the following document:
>- 'Offer/Answer Considerations for G723 Annex A and G729 Annex B'
>   <draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729-04.txt> as Proposed Standard
>
>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>[e-mail] mailing lists by 2013-11-27. Exceptionally, comments may be

I read this draft quickly.  According to the Abstract:

   "RFC4856 describes the annexa parameter for G723 and the annexb
    parameter for G729, G729D and G729E. However, the specification does
    not describe the offerer and answerer behavior when the value of the
    annexa or annexb parameter does not match in the Session Description
    protocol(SDP) offer and answer.  This document provides the offer/
    answer considerations for these parameters and updates RFC4856."

RFC 4856 is about media type registration of payload formats.  The 
IESG approval mentioned that the document "specify the procedure to 
register RTP payload formats as audio, video or other media subtype 
names".  The RFC does not specify the AnnexA parameter for G723.  I 
took a quick look at the RFCs being referenced.  They are about media 
type registrations.  It is doubtful whether they even qualify for 
Proposed Standard.

The premise on which the work in this draft is built is lacking.  The 
draft mentions
G723 Annex A without providing any reference to the 
specification.  In my opinion the draft needs more work for it to be 
a Proposed Standard.  It doesn't look like there has been any 
discussion about whether there are IPR issues affecting implementations.

Regards,
-sm