Re: [MMUSIC] Mismatch between sdp-bundle-negotiation and RFC5888: The Pull Request

[Roman Shpount <[e-mail]>]

I have reviewed the changes and they address the issue that I've raised.

Thank You,
_____________
Roman Shpount


On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 9:34 AM Flemming Andreasen <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Can people please comment on whether they agree with this proposed change
> ?
>
> Thanks
>
> -- Flemming (as MMUSIC co-chair)
>
> On 12/3/18 3:05 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
> I created a pull request for the RFC 5888 update text:
>
>
> https://github.com/cdh4u/draft-sdp-bundle/pull/63
> <https://github.com/cdh4u/draft-sdp-bundle/pull/63>
> Adding RFC 5888 update text by cdh4u · Pull Request #63 ·
> cdh4u/draft-sdp-bundle <https://github.com/cdh4u/draft-sdp-bundle/pull/63>
> github.com
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Christer
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* mmusic <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> on
> behalf of Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>
> <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Monday, December 3, 2018 7:50 PM
> *To:* Paul Kyzivat; Roman Shpount
> *Cc:* mmusic WG
> *Subject:* Re: [MMUSIC] Mismatch between sdp-bundle-negotiation and
> RFC5888
>
> Hi,
>
> Just to clarify: I don't object to making this change in BUNDLE - if we
> can do it by simply adding the text to the draft, let people take a look,
> and then be done with it.
>
> After all, we are not talking about a change to the BUNDLE mechanism
> itself - we are talking about documenting a change that we have already
> done.
>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
>
>
> On 03/12/2018, 19.37, "mmusic on behalf of Paul Kyzivat" <[e-mail]
> on behalf of [e-mail]>
> <[e-mail]@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>     On 12/2/18 7:45 PM, Roman Shpount wrote:
>     > On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 2:51 PM Paul Kyzivat <
> [e-mail]
>     > <mailto:[e-mail] <[e-mail]>>> wrote:
>     >
>     >     On 12/2/18 1:57 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>     >      > I guess my question to the chairs/ADs is whether we could
> implement
>     >      > Roman’s suggestion without having to take the document back to
>     >     the WG etc.
>     >
>     >     Couldn't this be done with a *new* draft that update 5888 in
> this way?
>     >
>     >
>     > This can be done as an update to RFC 5888 but we will be changing a
>     > single phrase there. Unless there are other things we need to update
>     > there, I do not think a whole new bis would make sense.
>
>     Yes, just a draft that makes this change, not a bis. It would be a
> very
>     small draft.
>
>          Thanks,
>          Paul
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     mmusic mailing list
>     [e-mail]
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing [e-mail]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>
>
>