Re: [MMUSIC] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729-04.txt> (Offer/Answer Considerations for G723 Annex A and G729 Annex B) to Proposed Standard

[Ari Keränen <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

As Partha & Muthu already mentioned, there was discussion and a 
consensus call on the type of the document and the consensus was that PS 
is the correct type. Admittedly the proto write-up could have been a bit 
more elaborate on that.


Cheers,
Ari

On 11/30/13 10:54 AM, SM wrote:
> Hi Ari,
>
> I read the PROTO write-up.  There isn't any answer to the following
> question:
>
>    "Why is this the proper type of RFC?"
>
> At 10:34 29-11-2013, Parthasarathi R wrote:
>> The draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729-04.txt related minutes of IETF84 is
>> given below for your reference:
>>
>> "draft-muthu-mmusic-offer-answer-g723-g729-00.txt - Parthasarathi
>> Ravindran
>>
>> Hadriel had clarifying questions on the proposed solution.
>>
>> Christer asked why this isn't addressed by change to the document that
>> defined this payload (RFC 4856), to include the o/a considerations.
>> IOW do a
>> bis of that document. Cullen said this should either be an update or a
>> bis
>> to the original doc ­ it should not be a BCP.
>>
>> Jonathan agreed with doing a bis. Roni said that when discussed in
>> PAYLOAD
>> WG (with many of same people) they suggested bringing it to MMUSIC and
>> doing
>> as BCP. Robert said BCP is almost certainly wrong.
>>
>> Chairs noted that nobody disagrees there is an issue. Chairs will discuss
>> with PAYLOAD WG chairs and ADs about what the proper process should be
>> for
>> resolving and documenting it."
>>
>> The related link is
>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/minutes/minutes-84-mmusic. The
>> draft is
>> submitted as "Standards track" as per WG chairs & AD instructions
>> after the
>> meeting and the relevant link is
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/current/msg09590.html.
>>
>> Your other comments are related to RFC 4856 and I have initiated in
>> the mail
>> thread to discuss those comments separately.
>
> According to the message quoted above:
>
>    (a) Cullen said that the document should either be an update or a bis to
>        the original document.
>
>    (b)  Robert said that BCP was certainly wrong.
>
>    (c) The draft was submitted as "Standards track" as that was the
>        instructions given by the WG Chairs and Area Director.
>
> There isn't any explanation.  Media type registrations are usually
> published as Informational RFCs.  I suggest publishing
> draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729-04 as an Information RFC.
>
> Regards,
> -sm
>