IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)" <mperumal@cisco.com> Wed, 04 December 2013 17:08 UTC

Return-Path: <mperumal@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBC8C1AE182 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 09:08:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.202
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fbc6_vgITsNq for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 09:08:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C2891AE006 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 09:08:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1933; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1386176900; x=1387386500; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=tr09wBL74NSHolSswkLkGK/rtDwQ/NAltjsS/jTN6W0=; b=k/ZYVBt4pY76njdS4Jlwwql0WDg+b6sZRMfMtu1e6FmgYGcjGyrTKKu2 b8aMQgSh6Y6h73GCO4Uor+otNuCK/ecFOeJ8ogLm/sy6L8Q5gvmA9lsyo kRzdUL5qgDpmTVKaNNyrEiTQYfDOgxAJVbiJT30QJpXvZgTNIy9wRB3+c Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgMFAMRgn1KtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABagweBC7hjgSQWdIIlAQEBBHkMBAIBCBEEAQELGQQHMhQJCAIEAQ0FCId6wXcXjk0xBwaDGoETA4kKoR2Ba4E+gio
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,825,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="289353132"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Dec 2013 17:08:20 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com [173.37.183.86]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rB4H8KSr030811 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 4 Dec 2013 17:08:20 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.4.34]) by xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com ([173.37.183.86]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 11:08:19 -0600
From: "Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)" <mperumal@cisco.com>
To: SM <sm@resistor.net>, Ari Keränen <ari.keranen@ericsson.com>
Thread-Topic: [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
Thread-Index: AQHO8RNtfwsIvulZkESVkyH00wN6Ag==
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 17:08:18 +0000
Message-ID: <E721D8C6A2E1544DB2DEBC313AF54DE22437429E@xmb-rcd-x02.cisco.com>
References: <20131030131748.6987.86198.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20131030185231.0ddfb7a8@resistor.net> <00a101ced981$77414d60$65c3e820$@co.in> <00ab01cee555$05f53560$11dfa020$@co.in> <6.2.5.6.2.20131119110213.0cb0dd40@resistor.net> <003301cee952$852cd120$8f867360$@co.in> <6.2.5.6.2.20131129000812.0bdaa088@resistor.net> <016d01ceed31$aa7a1130$ff6e3390$@co.in> <6.2.5.6.2.20131130003721.0d65a980@resistor.net> <E721D8C6A2E1544DB2DEBC313AF54DE22436AD4D@xmb-rcd-x02.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20131203011102.0db5d8c0@resistor.net> <E721D8C6A2E1544DB2DEBC313AF54DE2243737E1@xmb-rcd-x02.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20131204072722.0e064590@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20131204072722.0e064590@resistor.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.65.55.74]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "Flemming Andreasen (fandreas)" <fandreas@cisco.com>, "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: 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
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 17:08:25 -0000

Hi SM,

|-----Original Message-----
|From: SM [mailto:sm@resistor.net]
|Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 9:41 PM
|To: Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal); Ari Keränen
|Cc: Flemming Andreasen (fandreas); mmusic@ietf.org
|Subject: 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
|
|Hi Muthu,
|At 22:28 03-12-2013, Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal) wrote:
|>Sorry, not clear to me. Can you provide some examples?
|
|As an example:
|
|   "The reproduction of the [RFC4695] IANA considerations section appears
|    directly below.
|
|    This section makes a series of requests to IANA.  The IANA has
|    completed registration/assignments of the below requests."
|
|Please note that I picked one at random.
|
|>Also, draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729-04 doesn't need any IANA
|>action (see the IANA Considerations section). So, why should it be
|>published as an Informational RFC?
|
|The issue (using the word loosely) is that the draft is referring to
|a registration request in Section 1.1 of RFC 4856 which is about IANA
|Considerations.  

Yes, is referring to that section of RFC4856. However, the issue is not the registration itself -- it is to do with the missing offer/answer considerations for the registered media parameters that impact interoperability. As an example, RFC4352 registers AMR-WB+ and then describes the offer/answer model considerations for the parameters it registers. 

|My argument is that the working group has not
|provide an explanation about why the proposal should be published on
|the Standards Track.  Instead of objecting to the publication as a
|RFC I suggested publishing the proposal as an Informational RFC.

I don't think publishing it as an Informational RFC would improve interoperability.

Muthu

|
|Regards,
|-sm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email