Re: [MMUSIC] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp-38: (with DISCUSS)

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alexey,

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    DISCUSS:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    >>>Also, your IANA change introduced another issue.
    >>>
    >>>1) In 5.1:
    >>>
    >>>   The candidate attribute can itself be extended.  The grammar allows
    >>>   for new name/value pairs to be added at the end of the attribute.
    >>>
    >>>   Such extensions MUST be made through IETF Review or IESG Approval
    >>>   [RFC8126] and the assignments MUST contain the specific extension and
    >>>   a reference to the document defining the usage of the extension.
    >>>
    >>> This is effectively creating a new registry, but this information is not present in the IANA Considerations section. 
    >>> So you need to do one of the
    >>> following:
    >>>
    >>> a) Remove the last sentence
    >>> b) Reword it to only talk about IETF stream documents for defining extensions (IESG can't really do what you ask, 
    >>> unless you have an IANA registry established for these.) 
    >> c) Move this text to the IANA considerations and update it to properly define a new IANA registry.
    >
    > Our plan is to go for option c), and create a new IANA registry. We will create a pull request, and verify that the WG is ok with it.
    
The following pull requests creates a new IANA registry:

https://github.com/suhasHere/ice-sip-sdp/pull/19

    ---
    
    >> 2) In 10.2:
    >>
    >> You removed the following text:
    >>
    >>   o  Name, Email, and Address of a contact person for the registration
    >>
    >>   o  Organization or individuals having the change control
    >>
    >> I think removing (postal) Address is a good thing. However the rest of this is still needed, as IANA uses 
    >> this information to decide whether a person/organization is allowed to update an existing registry entry. 
    >> may be closed down. The authors of the RFC may have moved on. etc
    >>
    >> So please consider adding it back or explain why this information is not needed for a registry where external 
    >> organizations can add value (without publishing an RFC).
    >
    > The text already says that "Specification Required" applies to new entries.
    >
    > I am not aware of another registry where we would define entry-specific rules. 
    
    Let me know if you still have issues with this. Maybe I misunderstood your issue :)

    Regards,
    
    Christer