Re: [ALU] Shepherd's review ofdraft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-11

On 4/21/17 9:50 AM, Bo Burman wrote:
> Hi Raju,
>
> Unless someone strongly objects, and given that a) 4566bis is nowhere
> near to RFC status, b) there are other documents that make use of the
> new template, without normatively referencing 4566bis, and c) that we
> have documents with dependencies on -sdpneg that we want to progress and
> avoid becoming stuck in RFC Editor’s queue in MISSREF, I still believe
> that it would be better to make it an informative reference.

I don't see a need for a normative reference to 4566bis.

OTOH, AFAIK there is nothing to prevent 4566bis from going to WGLC 
*today*. It just needs for the motion to be made. I'm interested to hear 
about this from the chairs.

	Thanks,
	Paul

> Cheers,
>
> /Bo
>
>
>
> *From:* Makaraju, Raju (Nokia - US) [mailto:[email protected]]
> *Sent:* den 15 mars 2017 18:21
> *To:* Bo Burman <[email protected]>; mmusic ([email protected])
> <[email protected]>
> *Subject:* RE: [ALU] [MMUSIC] Shepherd's review
> ofdraft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-11
>
>
>
> Hi Bo, Paul,
>
> Since I don’t have a strong preference one way or other, I slightly lean
> towards to keeping 4566bis as a normative reference for the mentioned
> reason ‘use of new template defined by 4566bis’.
>
> I assume the impact of this being both must get RFC status simultaneously!?
>
> Do you know if 4566bis is close to RFC status?
>
>
>
> Bo, really appreciate bringing these comments to our attention!
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Raju
>
>
>
> *From:* Bo Burman [mailto:[email protected]]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 15, 2017 11:11 AM
> *To:* Makaraju, Raju (Nokia - US) <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>>; mmusic ([email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>) <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> *Subject:* RE: [ALU] [MMUSIC] Shepherd's review
> ofdraft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-11
>
>
>
> Hi Raju,
>
>
>
> I should probably have remembered also this in my “unaddressed” list
> below, but I put a question to the list to change 4566bis from normative
> to informative reference
> (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/8TZ_yX45geKewDqgHCv1HmURC-I),
> which seemed acceptable to Paul K, but so far no one else answered. What
> is the author’s view on this?
>
>
>
> /Bo
>
>
>
> *From:* Makaraju, Raju (Nokia - US) [mailto:[email protected]]
> *Sent:* den 13 mars 2017 22:57
> *To:* Bo Burman <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>>; mmusic ([email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>) <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> *Subject:* RE: [ALU] [MMUSIC] Shepherd's review
> ofdraft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-11
>
>
>
> Hi Bo,
>
>> It was a bit unclear if it was some kind of quote from somewhere,
> which is also commonly indicated by such indentation. I suggest just
> making it explicit that it is a note, starting the first line
>
>>with “Note: ”.
>
>
>
> Will do. Thanks.
>
>
>
> BR
>
> Raju
>
>
>
> *From:* Bo Burman [mailto:[email protected]]
> *Sent:* Monday, March 13, 2017 6:30 AM
> *To:* Makaraju, Raju (Nokia - US) <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>>; mmusic ([email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>) <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> *Subject:* RE: [ALU] [MMUSIC] Shepherd's review
> ofdraft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-11
>
>
>
> Hi Raju,
>
>
>
> Regarding:
>
> 9)      In Appendix A.1: Why are two paragraphs starting with “For data
> channels negotiated” indented compared to other text? Is it supposed to
> be some kind of note?
>
> */[Raju] Yes, meant to be a note. Need to change indentation? Or change
> to some other style?/*
>
>
>
> It was a bit unclear if it was some kind of quote from somewhere, which
> is also commonly indicated by such indentation. I suggest just making it
> explicit that it is a note, starting the first line with “Note: ”.
>
>
>
> /Bo
>
>
>
> *From:* Makaraju, Raju (Nokia - US) [mailto:[email protected]]
> *Sent:* den 13 mars 2017 02:52
> *To:* Bo Burman <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>>; mmusic ([email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>) <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> *Subject:* RE: [ALU] [MMUSIC] Shepherd's review
> ofdraft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-11
>
>
>
> Hi Bo Burman, Christian Groves, Paul Kyzivat,
>
>
>
> Thank you so much for your time in making this document better, we
> appreciate it. Sorry for the extended delay.
>
> I accepted all the comments.
>
> Please see my comments inserted below.
>
>
>
> Thanks again
>
> Raju
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* mmusic [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Bo Burman
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 28, 2017 10:11 AM
> *To:* mmusic ([email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>) <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>>
> *Subject:* [ALU] [MMUSIC] Shepherd's review
> ofdraft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-11
>
>
>
> Authors, WG,
>
>
>
> I think this document is getting ready for publication request. As part
> of making the shepherd’s write-up, I have the following comments, to be
> addressed in an updated document:
>
>
>
> Issues:
>
> 1)      In section 1: add that also BFCP (Binary Floor Control
> Protocol)  is used in the same way as MSRP in examples.
>
> */[Raju] Will add BFCP./*
>
> 2)      In 5.1.1.1, dcmap-stream-id = 1*DIGIT allows infinite length of
> this identifier, which seems inappropriate. I suggest providing a
> maximum length, maybe matching this to the unsigned 16 bit integer in
> SCTP (RFC 4960), in which case 1*5DIGIT should be sufficient.
>
> */[Raju] Will change as suggested./*
>
> 3)      In 5.1.1.1, quoted-visible ABNF syntax is incorrect, missing “x”
> after “%” when defining hex characters. Change to:
> quoted-visible  = %x21 / %x23-24 / %x26-7E ; VCHAR without " or %
>
> */[Raju] Will change as suggested./*
>
> 4)      In 5.1.2.1, text below the example makes reference to MSRP
> subprotocol, but the example does not explicitly include any MSRP. The
> single example line uses “accept-types”, which is admittedly related to
> MSRP, but I think this should be clarified to avoid confusion for
> readers not familiar with MSRP.
>
> */[Raju] Will change “Example” to “Example (other MSRP related SDP
> attributes are omitted for brevity):”/*
>
> 5)      In 5.2.2: It is unclear why you differentiate handling of offers
> and answers that contain both “max-retr” and “max-time”, mandating to
> reject the offer but allowing it in the answer. I think allowing this
> asymmetry should either be motivated, or handling should be aligned
> between offer and answer.
>
> */[Raju] I think it was thought giving a bit of flexibility to offerer
> while receiving answer is probably good but I see your point on aligning
> both. Will change text to align both./*
>
> 6)      In section 6: several examples uses IP addresses that are not
> aligned with RFC 6890 (10.10.10.x), which must be changed.
> Allowed ranges are 192.0.2.0/24 (TEST-NET-1), 198.51.100.0/24
> (TEST-NET-2), or 203.0.113.0/24 (TEST-NET-3).
>
> */[Raju] Will change as suggested. /*
>
> 7)      In Appendix A: same IP address issue as above, change from
> 79.97.215.79 to an address in the allowed range.
>
> */[Raju] Will change as suggested. /*
>
>
>
> Nits:
>
> 1)      The date line in the document header is one character too long
> (beyond column 72)
>
> */[Raju] Good catch! Hmmm… not sure how it is getting messed up as the
> it is supposed to be an auto generated line. Anyway, I just checked the
> new updated draft at /*https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org*/and output looks
> good./*
>
> 2)      In section 1: s/In future data channels could/In the future,
> data channels could/
>
> */[Raju] Will change as suggested. /*
>
> 3)      In section 3: s/sending and receive data/sending and receiving data/
>
> */[Raju] Will change as suggested. /*
>
> 4)      At the very end of section 5.1.2.1: s/in the same document,
> which registers/in the same document that registers/
>
> */[Raju] Will change as suggested. /*
>
> 5)      In 5.2.4: s/other data channels which are now not included/other
> data channels that are now not included/
>
> */[Raju] Will change as suggested./*
>
> 6)      In 5.2.5: s/channels are expected be closed now/channels are
> expected to be closed now/
>
> */[Raju] Will change as suggested./*
>
> 7)      In 8.3: s/dcsa usage level only shall use/dcsa usage level only
> SHALL use/
>
> */[Raju] Will change as suggested./*
>
> 8)      In Appendix A.1: s/either pass to the data channel stack the
> stream identifier to assign/either pass the stream identifier to the
> data channel stack to assign/
>
> */[Raju] Will change as suggested./*
>
> 9)      In Appendix A.1: Why are two paragraphs starting with “For data
> channels negotiated” indented compared to other text? Is it supposed to
> be some kind of note?
>
> */[Raju] Yes, meant to be a note. Need to change indentation? Or change
> to some other style?/*
>
>
>
> Comments from others that are not addressed in -11:
>
> 1)      Christian Groves commented on Jan 20 that the example in
> Appendix A should contain an “a=dtls-id:…” attribute as per other
> examples in the draft.
>
> */[Raju] Will add a=dtls-id./*
>
> 2)      Paul Kyzivat commented on Jan 21 that a bullet in section 5.2.3
> should be changed to:
> o For accepted data channels, the agent MUST create peer instances
>    for the data channels using the SCTP stream identifiers and
>    channel parameters contained in the SDP offer.
>
> */[Raju] Will change as suggested./*
>
> */ /*
>
> */Thanks/*
>
> */raju/*
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> /Bo
>
> MMUSIC co-chair
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>