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

[SM <[e-mail]>]

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