Re: [MMUSIC] Progressing draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc2326bis

On 11/21/13 5:23 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
> Folks,
>
> the IESG is reviewing the RTSP 2.0 spec below:
>
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc2326bis/
>
> Before progressing the draft, I have been asked by the IESG to check
> with the MMUSIC WG whether or not people still think it is worthwhile
> publishing this spec.
In short: Yes.

RTSP 2.0 provides a number of clarificiations, error fixes and updates 
to RTSP 1.0, which at this point is over 15 years old (see Appendix I 
for a list of those changes), and while RTSP 2.0 is not backwards 
compatible with RTSP 1.0 (in some cases due to underspecification of 
RTSP 1.0), many of the clarifications may prove helpful to implementers 
of RTSP 1.0, even if they don't migrate.

RTSP 2.0 also includes new functionality such as IPv6 and a companion 
document to assist with NAT traversal, which are just 2 examples of 
features needed in today's environment.

On a non-technical note, the WG agreed to do this work and the work has 
essentially completed at this point, with a significant amount of effort 
by the authors, incl. updates to address several in-depth reviews more 
recently. We usually do not apply a subjective value-judgement to 
whether a document should be published this late in the game (unless 
it's potentially harmful), and again, in lieu of the maturity level and 
effort that has been put into this document, it would not be reasonable 
to start doing that here.

>   In particular, they would like to know what level
> of deployment we can expect once the spec is published.
Clearly RTSP does not have the traction it used to have with HTTP 
adaptive bit-rate seemingly being all the rage these days. However, a 
couple of points to consider here:
1) If it doesn't get published, it won't get deployed.
2) Some of the clarifications/updates provided by the RTSP 2.0 spec are 
of use to RTSP 1.0 implementations as well and hence may prove helpful 
with resolving existing bugs (I've personally experienced this with 
other protocols)
3) While the people on this list may or may not indicate their plans 
around deployment, RTSP is a fairly well-known protocol with a large 
body of potential implementers beyond those subscribed to this mailing 
list. My personal experience with other protocols shows that more people 
look at these things than you may think (outside the WG).

I don't see any downside to publishing the spec, but based on the above, 
there are several good reasons to publishing it and hence I'm in favor 
of doing so.

Thanks

-- Flemming

> Your input is appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gonzalo
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>