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

Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Thu, 21 May 2015 19:05 UTC

Return-Path: <christer.holmberg@ericsson.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 153341A887A for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 May 2015 12:05:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 EelNp3f0K5P8 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 May 2015 12:05:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sesbmg23.ericsson.net (sesbmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.37]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 333691A8876 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 May 2015 12:05:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-f79b66d000001131-60-555e2c5f7757
Received: from ESESSHC024.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by sesbmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id AF.15.04401.F5C2E555; Thu, 21 May 2015 21:05:03 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSMB209.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.71]) by ESESSHC024.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.90]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Thu, 21 May 2015 21:05:03 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Review of draft-begen-mmusic-rfc4566bis-iana-updates-01
Thread-Index: AdCT9o/VI+xohOBPT0uf/irjUKnBtA==
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 19:05:02 +0000
Message-ID: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D82ACB2@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.150]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D82ACB2ESESSMB209erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrMLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvrW68TlyowedtVhYPts9ltPi3N8li 6vLHLA7MHlN+b2T1WLLkJ5PHl8uf2QKYo7hsUlJzMstSi/TtErgyvnY3MBV80a/YdnsrSwPj Y80uRk4OCQETied/jjBB2GISF+6tZ+ti5OIQEjjKKPHz2SomCGcxo8SEA/vZuxg5ONgELCS6 /2mDNIgIqEt83dvDDGIzCyRK7Gk5zwhSIizgIHH9rC5EiatEz60mJpCwiICexJIWsLUsAqoS fRumsYCEeQV8Jf5MYgQJMwJd8P3UGiaIgeISt57Mh7pMQGLJnvPMELaoxMvH/1ghbCWJFdsv MULU50ss7roFVs8rIChxcuYTlgmMwrOQjJqFpGwWkjKIuI7Egt2f2CBsbYllC18zw9hnDjxm QhZfwMi+ilG0OLU4KTfdyFgvtSgzubg4P08vL7VkEyMwlg5u+a26g/HyG8dDjAIcjEo8vAo2 saFCrIllxZW5hxilOViUxHk9u0JChQTSE0tSs1NTC1KL4otKc1KLDzEycXBKNTCGnNyd83Z2 +QtXbveK5J3vm7f6L1P5uPFhwqHvd1pefg+a8qPJzORPg/Ob2INfT1b4CBzovm+ROTu8aVmq ZkDmRcET5Y8kf31LauyfvvHkhoDycyv5juVkuTHuzPjddKGytKerV+IFT4PNibfV9teqPDw8 Z6u+zPlS1F71t7Lt7eTHKbk2T4KUWIozEg21mIuKEwEELT3VhgIAAA==
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/nwGsBs29PMknaI2JLimiMopVWqQ>
Cc: "mmusic-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <mmusic-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: [MMUSIC] Review of draft-begen-mmusic-rfc4566bis-iana-updates-01
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: Thu, 21 May 2015 19:05:09 -0000

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