Re: [MMUSIC] Alissa Cooper's Yes on draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp-38: (with COMMENT)

[Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>]

> On Aug 9, 2019, at 9:20 AM, Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Alissa,
> 
>    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>    COMMENT:
>    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>> Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS. Previous comments are still below. Note that
>> the "Obsoletes" header still appears although I thought Christer said he had
>> removed it.
> 
>    Well, I did remove it in the pull request, but Suhas put it back when submitting a new version, as Heather indicated that it is ok to have it, and Flemming (WG chair) also indicated that he would like to have it there.
> 
>    Personally I don't have any preference, so whatever the community decides :)

Ok, sounds good.
Alissa

> 
>    Regards,
> 
>    Christer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>    -----
> 
>    Since RFC 5245 is already obsolete, this document cannot obsolete it I don't
>    think. RFC 8445 references this document, so readers of that document will be
>    able to find this one.
> 
>    Section 2: Please use the precise boilerplate from RFC 8174.
> 
>    Section 4.1: It's not clear why IESG Approval is included as one of the
>    registration policies to extend the candidate attribute. Does the WG anticipate
>    cases where IETF Review will not be appropriate? And I agree with Alexey that a
>    registry needs to be defined in the IANA Considerations section.
> 
>    Section 8: Agree with Ben about adding references to ICE and SDP security
>    considerations.
> 
>    Section 9.1.1: s/[e-mail]/[e-mail]/
> 
>    Section 9.2: Further to Alexey's point, the minimal information necessary for
>    the registry to function should be collected and/or published.
> 
> 
> 
>