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

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

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.

/a