Re: [MMUSIC] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-28: (with COMMENT)

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

> On Aug 25, 2017, at 7:55 AM, Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 
> On 24/08/17 21:53, "Adam Roach" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> On 8/24/17 13:02, Ben Campbell wrote:
>>>> On Aug 24, 2017, at 12:52 PM, Adam Roach <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On 8/24/17 12:48, Ben Campbell wrote:
>>>>>> On Aug 23, 2017, at 1:30 PM, Adam Roach <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 8/23/17 04:38, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>>>>>>>> I would think the long-form title of this document should include
>>>>>>>> "TLS,"
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> reflect that it also contains TLS-related procedures.
>>>>>>> The issue is that the document doesn¹t really define the O/A
>>>>>>> procedures
>>>>>>> for TLS. It simply adds the usage of the tls-id attribute to the
>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>> procedures defined elsewhere.
>>>>>> Right, so make that clear. I note that simply adding "and
>>>>>> Identification of TLS Connections" to the end is ambiguous (since it
>>>>>> makes it sound like it defines O/A for TLS), but you can fix this by
>>>>>> reversing the existing title; e.g., something like: "Establishing
>>>>>> Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Using the Session
>>>>>> Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answer Mechanism and Identification
>>>>>> of Transport Layer Security (TLS) Connections in SDP”
>>>>> Wow, that’s petty cumbersome as a title―it’s pretty much an abstract.
>>>>> Does it need that much detail?
>>>>> 
>>>> It's the result of taking a reasonably short title ("Establishing DLTS
>>>> using the SDP Offer/Answer Mechanism and Identification of TLS
>>>> Connections in SDP") and applying RFC Editor policies of acronym
>>>> expansion to it. If you can think of some shorter way to say it, that'd
>>>> be great -- but if I'm perusing a list of titles for something
>>>> TLS-related and come across one that mentions only DTLS, I'd skip over
>>>> it. The original title seems like a genuine flaw.
>>> Here’s a sacrificial proposal from the _much_ more general side:
>>> 
>>>     “DTLS and TLS considerations in the SDP Offer/Answer Mechanism”
>>> 
>>> … with appropriate acronym expansions of course.
>> 
>> I have no problem with that.
> 
> 
> “In the mechanism” sounds a little strange in my ears, so I suggest:
> 
> “SDP Offer/Answer considerations for DTLS and TLS”

WFM, and even saves 2 more words :-)  

It will of course need expansions for SDP, DTLS, and TLS, but I assume you plan that.

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Christer