Re: [rtcweb] [MMUSIC] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-04

Ted Hardie <> Tue, 20 July 2021 09:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 883DC3A1AB1; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 02:37:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u1ZELjcM1-SQ; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 02:37:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::330]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8C0B3A1AAC; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 02:37:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id t4-20020a05683014c4b02904cd671b911bso12930471otq.1; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 02:37:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=gcx9Yzu5sH7d6TVaKmxGey2yqTqmI+pfKyQ/9ILCEIo=; b=k8cxOJeBy/vqEnmY4iy07V149Y26efCneRQHJYht3KQChk/2820yVkEiYrMOj0Xt82 28I9OIDSVyskRfbZWU5IdrxYhit0ui7y0fzRiOB8n+JHU7it3UJuBRUP9x5iS3+27HXy fcm6Z/HcqIjT1dX9y5FWTRcQb1xKJmmOC0Rptm/cMkXqnTllxXoMlYuN6ppPnu8kxsN6 gTeiVZzJp43M3z3ZKJ3MP/1ySluYsqVGZDL0PS54kScI/TXMtNxg1nE/wGG3H9sTiNb1 sjO9a/vhjFjLtaUDGdk2yRUWwEqjLMoMUnR/18XV5H5wLPzQce6rJt6seZxJHYMeg13G yf1w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=gcx9Yzu5sH7d6TVaKmxGey2yqTqmI+pfKyQ/9ILCEIo=; b=GlNxHyDqcPcsVTxeeVvSiKS54TgJQ80pjTxnMNtSlm5pmeVQA7cVDXhJAY7qjnGW7Q +YTTo/ksydfKhA0vyEWUegdv9VA9PECxCn5BXDD8k8ka2uu2nnRzqjGo9c3aShFHSU+c rSFYdTGx65cnh5nLoYNZs1SK9owv3yz07uvIuWEk6IUVH+ZKrQXxqupPYoP/OkWb7Mk/ KgrPEqpOJGVsPtnaafanykxmTFlHt1kpQCu9mPEumo3I9WmAxSrMSDZTwxhNHbrKztPD YAYJnfpRzA00JVE8lpNQhILLytTU6UeXU6D/Z08uGr91PVfss0AUUcvU9LrfpdonyexP s96A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532Q7y7tg80MjPKIZTqOFauQlWqkctKGc7Q7OrLFo2lgRL5f/MAC ecNh2Z4qcPaS9gcJbmsPzQznBaLcERTtdSRjqm0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyXhEIjB1KKmQYrVF3b4D4+E+u578a5L1T3fRg1X+0jwxw8P6cosIpkuGyBkik+PlxGIBYDIm8lZ/m1S+6Ee+8=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:19c2:: with SMTP id p2mr1622266otp.49.1626773823505; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 02:37:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Ted Hardie <>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 10:36:37 +0100
Message-ID: <>
To: Christer Holmberg <>, RTCWeb IETF <>
Cc: Flemming Andreasen <>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>, Flemming Andreasen via Datatracker <>, "" <>, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e146c705c78acbc0"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] [MMUSIC] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-04
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 09:37:12 -0000

Hi RTCWEB folks,

If you have not already reviewed draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc8843bis-04 (aka
BUNDLEbis), it would be great if you could do so before the RTCWEB meeting
next week, since the JSEP update is linked to it.


Ted Hardie

On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 4:46 PM Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg=> wrote:

> Hi,
> >> I've reviewed the diff between this and RFC8843.  Looks good.  Thanks
> for a good shepherd writeup too.  Just a couple of comments:
> >> The registrations in Section 16 should make it clear they are updating,
> not creating, the entries they describe.  RFC 8843 created them.
> > Ok. I believe the authors can make that change later.
> I am not really sure what the change would look like.
> For example, if I do the following change in Section 16.1:
> s/This document adds the MID SDES item to the IANA "RTP SDES Item Types"
> registry as follows: /This document updates the MID SDES item registered in
> RFC 8843 in the IANA "RTP SDES Item Types" registry as follows
> seems like all the information is updated.
> >> It would probably make things even smoother to indicate in the shepherd
> writeup that RTCWEB reviewed this, so that their JSEP update doesn't
> conflict with it.  (And if they didn't, please at a minimum forward
> >> them the IETF Last Call announcement when it comes out.)  I know the
> writeup already describes the separation of work, but we're likely to be
> asked to confirm that there was more coordination than that.
> > Good point. We did not have RTCWEB review the update per se, however a
> couple of the people that reviewed it are intimately involved in the RTCWEB
> work. Should we alert the RTCWEB group at this point or wait until the IETF
> Last Call ?
> As Flemming said, people that have reviewed BUNDLEbis are also active in
> RTCWEB. In addition, when Flemming sent out the publication request e-mail,
> I did forward it to the RTCWEB list.
> As RTCWEB is meeting this week, I guess it can also be mentioned there.
> Regards,
> Christer
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list