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)" <[e-mail]>]

|Media type registrations are usually published as Informational RFCs.  
|I suggest publishing draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729-04 as an Information RFC.

Registered audio media types are listed here:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/audio

As you can see most of them are described in Standards Track RFCs, so your observation is incorrect.

Muthu

|-----Original Message-----
|From: mmusic [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of SM
|Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 2:24 PM
|To: Ari Keränen
|Cc: Flemming Andreasen (fandreas); [e-mail]
|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 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
|
|_______________________________________________
|mmusic mailing list
|[e-mail]
|https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic