Re: [MMUSIC] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-options-registry-01.txt> (IANA Registry for Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) Options) to Proposed Standard

[Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[e-mail]>]

02.05.2011 11:44, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When the last call has ended I will update the draft with the changes
> identified.
Thanks for considering and intention to incorporate my comments.

Mykyta Yevstifeyev
> Mykyta Yevstifeyev skrev 2011-04-29 18:04:
>> Magnus,
>>
>> 29.04.2011 11:47, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>>> Hi Mykyta,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the review.
>>>
>>> See inline for response.
>>>
>>> Mykyta Yevstifeyev skrev 2011-04-28 19:22:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> Some comments on this document, currently in Last Call.
>>>>
>>>>> Network Working Group                                      M. Westerlund
>>>>> Internet-Draft                                                  Ericsson
>>>>> Updates: 5245 (if approved)                                   C. Perkins
>>>>> Intended status: Standards Track                   University of Glasgow
>>>>> Expires: September 29, 2011                               March 28, 2011
>>>> I don't see why the intended status for this document is Standards
>>>> Track.  Wouldn't Informational be enough?  Could you please justify why
>>>> have you chosen it?
>>> I don't think we have put much thought into it. But one reason I can
>>> think of is to have it on the same maturity level as the ICE
>>> specification itself. Thus enabling a merge of this registry into an
>>> update of RFC 5245 without forcing it to be recycled as proposed.
>> This is a good reason, so I'll agree with it.
> Ok
>
>>>> Your registry description does not mention what is the precise name of
>>>> the registry.  While everybody understands that is sands for ICE
>>>> options, it would be useful to give IANA distinctive guidelines on its
>>>> name (this is also required in RFC5226, Section 4.2, 1) in the list;
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226#section-4.2).
>>> Yes, I agree that it should be included in Section 3.1 of our document
>>> rather than only in the title which says "Interactive Connectivity
>>> Establishment (ICE) Options"
>> Agreed on this.  Such name is fine, IMO.
> Ok
>
>>>>    From RFC 5226, also Section 4.2:
>>>>
>>>>>    5) Initial assignments and reservations.  Clear instructions
>>>>>            should be provided to identify any initial assignments or
>>>>>            registrations.  In addition, any ranges that are to be reserved
>>>>>    for "Private Use", "Reserved", "Unassigned", etc. should be
>>>>>            clearly indicated.
>>>> Are there any initial assignments?  Your document mentions one option;
>>>> shouldn't it be registered?
>>> No, because when draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-ecn gets published that will
>>> actually do the registration. As that document isn't approved yet and in
>>> fact still not WG last called this registry will first be created empty
>>> and then populated.
>> So you should have mentioned this in the draft as well.
> Ok, will clarify.
>
>>>>>    A registration request MUST include the following information:
>>>>>
>>>>>      [ . . . ]
>>>> Shall this be mentioned as a registration template?
>>> It isn't written as one. It is a list of what needs to be present in the
>>> registration. And I think a template would be more focused on what needs
>>> to the general categories rather than the information. Thus I don't want
>>> this as registration template.
>> OK, this matter is not very important.
>>>>> o  Email and Address of the Contact person
>>>> I think you should add the name of the contact person to the name of
>>>> this field as well.
>>> As the two first bullets are:
>>>
>>>      o  Name of contact person for the registration
>>>
>>>      o  Email and Address of the Contact person
>>>
>>> I don't quite understand your comment. Do you want us to merge the two
>>> entries? This as the contact persons will need to provide name, email
>>> and address. I am fine with merging them and this is likely a slight
>>> improvement.
>> No, I didn't propose to merge it.  I just proposed to rename this field
>> as "Name, Email and Addresses of the Contact Person".
> I think it is logical to have only one entry saying:
>
> "Name, Email and Addresses of the Contact Person for the registration"
>
> Cheers
>
> Magnus Westerlund
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ericsson AB                | Phone  [phone]
> Färögatan 6                | Mobile [phone]
> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [e-mail]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>