Re: [MMUSIC] Draft new version: draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-02

["Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <[e-mail]>]

I have read this draft and been following it with particular interest
regarding its impact on
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-12.
I believe it is ready for WGLC.

Cheers,
Charles

On 12/17/15, 8:09 AM, "Christer Holmberg" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bo Burman 
>Sent: 10. joulukuuta 2015 11:14
>To: Christer Holmberg; Paul Kyzivat; [e-mail]
>Subject: RE: [MMUSIC] Draft new version: draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-02
>
>MMUSIC,
>
>The plan in Yokohama was to start moving towards WGLC after a few updates
>were made.
>
>It seems to me that this document is now fairly stable. I assume the
>changes mentioned below will be included in an -04 (-03 already posted).
>
>Please read the document and comment whether or not it is ready for WGLC.
>
>/Bo & Flemming
>MMUSIC co-chairs
> 
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: mmusic [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Christer
>> Holmberg
>> Sent: den 8 december 2015 22:13
>> To: Paul Kyzivat; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Draft new version: draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-02
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> >Section 8 consists solely of section 8.1. The 8.1 is redundant.
>> 
>> Correct. There was supposed to be a chapter 8.2 too, and when it was
>>removed I forgot to fix the rest.
>> 
>> >Section 10 looks a little weird, because it has the section numbering
>> >for the updated documents mixed >in with the section numbering of
>> >this document. I'm not sure of long term plans. Is this stuff to
>> >>eventually be removed once everyone agrees on what is to be done? Or
>> >is it to remain? If it is going to >be removed, then what you have is
>> >fine. If it is going to stay, then I think something needs to be done
>> >>to make the presentation less confusing. (E.g., indent it and/or
>> >move into an
>> >appendix.)
>> 
>> I don't think it is going to be removed. This document updates the
>> listed RFC, and the updated text will not be anywhere else (unless
>>someone decides to incorporate the text into a bis, which at least is
>>not my intention).
>> 
>> We can look at the section numbering, and see whether it can be made
>> more clear. Perhaps the section number of the updated sections don't
>>need to be in the updated text, as we already say which sections are
>>updated.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Christer
>> 
>> 
>> On 12/8/15 2:48 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > A new version (-02) of draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-02 has been
>>submitted.
>> >
>> > Note that this version now suggests updates to RFC 5763 (SRTP-DTLS)
>> > and RFC 7341 (UDPTL-DTLS), so I encourage people to take a look.
>> >
>> > In addition, there is some new text about re-using
>> > connection-oriented
>> > (read: acknowledged packet delivery) for establishing a new DTLS
>> > association.
>> >
>> > You can also find the document on github:
>> > https://github.com/cdh4u/draft-dtls-sdp
>> >
>> > (NOTE: This is my personal repo, as I am not aware of any "official"
>> > MMUSIC repo)
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Christer
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > mmusic mailing list
>> > [e-mail]
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>> >
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> mmusic mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> mmusic mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic