Re: [MMUSIC] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-28: (with COMMENT)

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

PR has been updated with the new title.

Regards,

Christer


On 25/08/17 15:55, "Christer Holmberg" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>Hi,
>
>
>On 24/08/17 21:53, "Adam Roach" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>On 8/24/17 13:02, Ben Campbell wrote:
>>>> On Aug 24, 2017, at 12:52 PM, Adam Roach <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 8/24/17 12:48, Ben Campbell wrote:
>>>>>> On Aug 23, 2017, at 1:30 PM, Adam Roach <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/23/17 04:38, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>>>>>>>> I would think the long-form title of this document should include
>>>>>>>>"TLS,"
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> reflect that it also contains TLS-related procedures.
>>>>>>> The issue is that the document doesn¹t really define the O/A
>>>>>>>procedures
>>>>>>> for TLS. It simply adds the usage of the tls-id attribute to the
>>>>>>>existing
>>>>>>> procedures defined elsewhere.
>>>>>> Right, so make that clear. I note that simply adding "and
>>>>>>Identification of TLS Connections" to the end is ambiguous (since it
>>>>>>makes it sound like it defines O/A for TLS), but you can fix this by
>>>>>>reversing the existing title; e.g., something like: "Establishing
>>>>>>Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Using the Session
>>>>>>Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answer Mechanism and Identification
>>>>>>of Transport Layer Security (TLS) Connections in SDP”
>>>>> Wow, that’s petty cumbersome as a title―it’s pretty much an abstract.
>>>>>Does it need that much detail?
>>>>>
>>>> It's the result of taking a reasonably short title ("Establishing DLTS
>>>>using the SDP Offer/Answer Mechanism and Identification of TLS
>>>>Connections in SDP") and applying RFC Editor policies of acronym
>>>>expansion to it. If you can think of some shorter way to say it, that'd
>>>>be great -- but if I'm perusing a list of titles for something
>>>>TLS-related and come across one that mentions only DTLS, I'd skip over
>>>>it. The original title seems like a genuine flaw.
>>> Here’s a sacrificial proposal from the _much_ more general side:
>>>
>>>      “DTLS and TLS considerations in the SDP Offer/Answer Mechanism”
>>>
>>> … with appropriate acronym expansions of course.
>>
>>I have no problem with that.
>
>
>“In the mechanism” sounds a little strange in my ears, so I suggest:
>
>“SDP Offer/Answer considerations for DTLS and TLS”
>
>Regards,
>
>Christer
>