[MMUSIC] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-proto-iana-registration

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Here's my AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-proto-iana-registration. I 
have a couple of comments I'd like to resolve before last call, and a 
few editorial comments.:

Substantive (to be resolved before last call):

- (This is really editorial, but I think there's a chance for 
confusion.) The references in section 3 seem insufficient. Section 1 
lists RFCs that define most of all of the related transport protocol 
profiles. For example, [RFC4585] for TCP/RTP/AVPF and [RFC3711] for 
TCP/RTP/SAVP. That information should probably also go in section 3, 
since that's the section referenced by the IANA considerations section. 
To avoid duplication, consider moving the bits after the first paragraph 
of section 1 into the respective subsections of 3.

- The security considerations seem inadequate. Most, if not all, of the 
proto values listed here refer to some other RFC that has it's own 
security considerations. So it doesn't really seem true to say there are 
no considerations other than those in 4566.

Editorial (non-blocking):

- The abstract is long. The 2nd paragraph describes what the draft does. 
Can some or all of the first paragraph be relegated to the intro?

- 3: It would be helpful to mention that the transport protocol 
mentioned in the first paragraph goes in the <proto> field in the 
M-line.