[MMUSIC] Review of draft-begen-mmusic-rfc4566bis-iana-updates-01

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I have reviewed the rfc4566bis-iana-updates draft.

In general the draft looks ok. Regarding whether the content should be included in 4566bis, or be published as a separate RFC, my personal preference would be to include it in 4566bis. However, I can also live with a separate RFC. I don't think it should update RFC 4566.

I also have some editorial comments on section 3.1:

Q1:

The following sentence:

"While there have been multiple network and address types have been registered so far..."

....does not parse. I suggest to remove "there have been" in the beginning of the sentence:

"While multiple network and address types have been registered so far..."


Q2:

Instead of saying "usable", I suggest to say "applicable".


Q3:

In the table, would it be more clear to replace "SDP Name" with "nettype"?


Q4:

Instead of saying that the author "has to check" whether a new address type is usable/applicable with the existing network types, I'd say that author has to define with which addrtypes (new and existing) the new address type is applicable.

Thanks!

Regards,

Christer