[Sipbrandy] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-sipbrandy-osrtp-09: (with COMMENT)

Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 22 May 2019 17:34 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: sipbrandy@ietf.org
Delivered-To: sipbrandy@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B7941201D2; Wed, 22 May 2019 10:34:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind_via_Datatracker?= <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-sipbrandy-osrtp@ietf.org, Gonzalo Camarillo <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>, sipbrandy-chairs@ietf.org, gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com, sipbrandy@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.96.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind?= <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Message-ID: <155854644315.11139.1539053719256698071.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 10:34:03 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sipbrandy/BF-lypYABp69f9KRhIraqzDw7X4>
Subject: [Sipbrandy] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_No_Objection_on_d?= =?utf-8?q?raft-ietf-sipbrandy-osrtp-09=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
X-BeenThere: sipbrandy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: SIPBRANDY working group discussion list <sipbrandy.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sipbrandy>, <mailto:sipbrandy-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sipbrandy/>
List-Post: <mailto:sipbrandy@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipbrandy-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipbrandy>, <mailto:sipbrandy-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 17:34:03 -0000

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sipbrandy-osrtp-09: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sipbrandy-osrtp/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why is the intended status informational? Unfortunately, this is not further
explained in the shepherd write-up. What was the discussion in the group and
why was informational decided? As this is a protocol specification,
informational does not seem appropriate. Except this is meant to only document
an existing deployment but then the document should say so. I think it should
rather be experimental.