Re: [MMUSIC] Addressing comment from IANA on draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-25

Hi Paul,
Section 8.2.4.1 of https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis-33#section-8.2.4 (normative reference in SDPNEG) registers usage level dcsa and dcsa (subprotocol) for the IANA att-field and point at the data-channel-sdpneg document for the definition. I think it will be simple to keep as is and just have the definition  in sdpneg but I have no strong feeling. So just decide, if you change RFC4566bis , we will need to keep section 9.3 in data-channel-sdpneg and just clarify what we register.

Roni

-----Original Message-----
From: mmusic [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 7:32 PM
To: mmusic@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Addressing comment from IANA on draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-25

On 4/11/19 6:34 AM, Roni Even (A) wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I got the following comment from IANA:
> 
> Third, Section 9.3 of the current document appears to request the 
> creation of a new registry in the Session Description Protocol (SDP) 
> Parameters registry located at:
> 
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-parameters/
> 
> IANA Question --> The new registry might be modeled upon the existing 
> att-field (. . . level) registries but instead be a registry for 
> att-field (dcsa level). Is this correct? Would the new registry have 
> the same characteristics as other att-field registries on the registry page?
> Could the draft be revised to explicitly create the registry, if this 
> is correct? Are there any initial registrations in this new registry?
> 
> My response was
> 
> We are not asking for a new registry,  see
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis-33#section-8.
> 5 for  the Reorganization of the att-field Registries.  I now think 
> that this third action is not really needed since it is now defined in 
> rfc4566bis section 8.5 and 8.4
> 
> So I suggest to remove section 9.3 and add to the end of section 
> section
> 5.2.1

ISTM we actually got a little ahead of ourselves in 4566bis by mentioning dcsa and msrp-usage-datachannel.

While 4566bis reorganizes the attribute registries so that we don't need a new registry for dcsa, is is draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg
that defines the dcsa usage level. The publication of it should result in addition of a reference to it in the attribute registry. So I think we need an IANA action just to accomplish that.

And maybe the references to dcsa and msrp-usage-data-channel should be removed from 4566bis if it isn't too late to do so.

I don't find section 5.2.1 to be an appropriate place for this kind of information.

	Thanks,
	Paul

> A data channel specific usage of a subprotocol attribute is expected 
> to be specified
> 
>     in the same document that registers the subprotocol's identifier 
> for
> 
>     data channel usage.
> 
>          SDP attributes that are only defined for use at the
> 
>     dcsa usage level, SHALL use the dcsa usage level when registering 
> the
> 
>     attribute.  If existing media attributes are used in a datachannel
> 
>     subprotocol specific way, then a new dcsa usage level
> 
>     MUST be defined for the existing media attribute.  Where the SDP
> 
>    attribute is applicable to a particular subprotocol/s this SHALL 
> also
> 
>     be registered by indicating the applicable subprotocol identifiers
> 
>     (see
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis-34#section-8.
> 5)
> along with the dcsa usage level.
> 
> Roni Even
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
> 

_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
mmusic@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic