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

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 20 March 2019 03:07 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91D4E12787D for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 20:07:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.679
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.679 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5SWMSfP4uNvE for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 20:07:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 66CD1126CFF for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 20:07:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bens-macbook.lan (cpe-66-25-20-105.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.20.105]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x2K37Wm5024238 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 19 Mar 2019 22:07:34 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1553051255; bh=QXA15lT2qlV0iO5WpIMsmdslZjZpBpYMkEoHW3nenuQ=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=M0mefuznXzOYVv2uuuH9sBI21DDLhykeX0s5FtX4LChUuNUmd7Z8GbHHsPyCihRgR Eo//6atMc4L2qYMxPbhpXLbq/6Osn6V6f5aL1F8Rnvz9q8eV5v4ZaPOKxpBOY7ptV+ zJCLWKp4j2xUk7nfAf31HwWH+p/4kl84Hn/zAMH0=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-66-25-20-105.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.20.105] claimed to be bens-macbook.lan
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Message-Id: <E8A4A887-03C0-41EB-83BE-AF0411216A8F@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F72473F0-9A5C-4385-9495-7E3D7006BB43"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 22:07:26 -0500
In-Reply-To: <f261920b-7f5a-cb75-1f4e-8bfe78952550@alum.mit.edu>
Cc: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>, mmusic@ietf.org
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
References: <04CAFF8C-B6ED-4B7D-9FDD-ED37DCA2848B@nostrum.com> <2f297a3c-39d4-cb99-65f4-f0bcd072306a@alum.mit.edu> <C054EF10-FE82-4E9D-9ABA-5C2E6090F0C9@csperkins.org> <6f0d20c2-0397-2bbd-5671-8b7ea0d8c98d@alum.mit.edu> <0A5AD09E-8C94-4698-9418-EA0DE099FD07@csperkins.org> <57c8eb93-895a-9c7e-cdea-27237c67b2b0@alum.mit.edu> <F02E04D0-EEEA-4908-9035-85A321B890CC@nostrum.com> <f261920b-7f5a-cb75-1f4e-8bfe78952550@alum.mit.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/apkKbCni38X2E6S_RmRRv4RBhn8>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis-32
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mmusic/>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 03:07:48 -0000


> On Mar 14, 2019, at 12:32 PM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> 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 <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> 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.