Re: [MMUSIC] Updated MSID draft

Hi Harald

I have taken a closer look at msid-05 and have a number of comments. I 
will list the major ones and/or what might require list discussion here 
and send you a bunch of more detailed ones in an annotated version 
off-line:

1) There are some grammar inconsistencies between the way you use token 
and (some) of the text you have. In general, it seems the length should 
be limited and the set of characters you want to allow are less than 
what token allows for.

2) Offer/Answer procedures are lacking. We need to have an O/A section 
with subsections as per RFC 3264 (for unicast) to better specify the 
overall behavior here (Generating the Initial Offer, Generating the 
Answer, Offerer Processing of the Answer, Modifying the Session)

3) There is some ambiguity as to what constitues an msid value and more 
specifically when it includes both the MediaStream identifier and the 
MediaStreamTrack and when (if ?) it doesn't.

4) Unified-plan is being referenced in a normative manner (but is listed 
as an informative reference). Since unified-plan is not expected to go 
to RFC, having a normative reference to it is problematic.

Thanks

-- Flemming

On 3/6/14, 8:25 AM, Flemming Andreasen wrote:
> I think the draft needs a bit more work in a few places (largely 
> editorial and more text on some of the procedures). I'll sign up to do 
> a pre-WGLC individual review to get you some more tangible and 
> constructive feedback on that.
>
> Thanks
>
> -- Flemming
>
>
> On 3/6/14, 8:19 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>> I have uploaded an updated msid draft, without the msid-control: 
>> section.
>>
>> As I said in the WG meeting, I think this is now uncontroversial, and
>> should be ready for WG Last Call.
>>
>> I request that the WG chairs consider whether they agree with this 
>> opinion.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>