Re: [MMUSIC] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis-32

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

> On Mar 14, 2019, at 12:32 PM, Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 3/11/19 7:22 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> On Mar 11, 2019, at 5:26 PM, Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 3/11/19 1:43 PM, Colin Perkins wrote:
>>> 
>>>>>> §5 has several changes to normative language. Most are okay, but I think the change from “all MUST appear in exactly the order given here” to “all must appear” weakens it too much, and I’d prefer that to remain a MUST.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The reason for changing that is because the *normative* specification of the ordering is from the ABNF. The text here is explanatory and non-normative. (Note that a couple of paragraphs prior to this is a new statement emphasizing that the ABNF is normative.)
>>>> Sorry, but I think this change is problematic. The text needs to use normative language that is consistent with the ABNF.
>>> 
>>> My thinking is that we don't like to have redundant normative specification, just in case they aren't consistent. The ABNF is normative. This section is of necessity an approximation.
>>> 
>>> But I defer to Ben or whoever.
>> I agree with both of you. :-)
>> That is, we should avoid duplication normative requirements when possible, because it increases the chance of  spec errors. But we should still try to make sure the sections agree.
> 
> That is what I have tried to do. AFAIK they are consistent within the limits of the expressiveness of the informal syntax in the Section 5 figure.
> 
> The only divergence I am aware of is in the time description. The figure can't express that z= may only be used if it is preceded by an r=. It used to be that the abnf was consistent with the figure as written - permitting a z= without an r=. But that was nonsense because we have clarified that the z= only affects the immediately preceding r=.
> 
> IMO trying to indicate that subtlety in this figure would be counter-productive, by making the figure harder to follow.

I am convinced.

How far are we from having a revision ready for IETF LC? (I’ll be glad to approve an embargo override if needed.)

Thanks!

Ben.