Re: [Slim] IETF last call for draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language (Issue 8, section 6, IANA registrations)

At 12:30 PM -0500 2/15/17, Paul Kyzivat wrote:

>  On 2/15/17 11:26 AM, Randall Gellens wrote:
>
>>>   I checked in current IANA registrations, and found that all SDP
>>>  attribute registrations now include the "Mux Category".
>>>
>>>   So, I assume that we are obliged to do so also and hope that we can
>>>  agree on that.
>>>   As far as I understand the logic, we should specify NORMAL.
>>
>>  This is not required.  See the IANA registry at
>>  http://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-parameters/sdp-parameters.xhtml. It
>>  is governed by RFC 4566.
>>
>>  As I've written twice before, my concern is that this suggestion exceeds
>>  a simple editorial change, and therefore may need to be discussed on the
>>  WG list with WG consensus before it can be adopted.  These fields can be
>>  added to the attribute registration later, according to the rules for
>>  the registry
>>  (http://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-parameters/sdp-parameters.xhtml)
>
>  The mux-category is a big deal. There is a document in progress 
> that defines the mux-category for all existing attributes. 
> Attributes defined after that need to define their mux-category. 
> There is potentially a problem with attributes defined while this 
> work is in progress. That document for old attributes isn't going 
> to chase after ones defined concurrently. I think you will find 
> that if you don't define this then it will be caught and requested 
> either by a sdp-directorate review, or else the iesg review. So 
> just do it!

After reading through draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes, I agree 
and have added "MUX Category:  normal" to both attributes.

>>>   I saw no trace yet of registrations of  "Usage Level: dcsa(subprotocol)"
>>>
>>>   I would like to get advice from someone with insight in the SDP
>>>  attribute registration and the status of the dsca(subprotocol) value
>>>  on how we should proceed in order to get the dsca(subprotocol)
>>>  included in a smooth way without causing exessive delay.
>
>  So far there has been *no* interest in defining RTP over SCTP. 
> Until/unless that is defined there is no need to define dcsa for 
> this attribute.
>
>  	Thanks,
>  	Paul
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  SLIM mailing list
>  SLIM@ietf.org
>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
Children are natural mimics who act like their parents despite every
effort to teach them good manners.