Re: The MMUSIC WG has placed draft-hutton-mmusic-opportunistic-negotiation in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"
"Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.mmusic |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
SIPBRANDY WG is not chartered to produce PS specs, which the original draft (draft-ietf-sipbrandy-osrtp) would have been since it was updating a current PS. The WG made the decision (vetted by AD and IESG) to not re-charter and instead decided split off the piece that updates a PS into a new PS (draft-hutton-mmusic-opportunistic-negotiation). -G > On May 9, 2017, at 11:08 AM, Paul Kyzivat <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 5/9/17 5:44 AM, IETF Secretariat wrote: >> >> The MMUSIC WG has placed draft-hutton-mmusic-opportunistic-negotiation in >> state >> Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Bo Burman) >> >> The document is available at >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hutton-mmusic-opportunistic-negotiation/ >> >> >> Comment: >> Based on the feedback we received at the IETF 98 meeting in Chicago, it >> seems there is strong consensus for adopting this draft in MMUSIC. > > I don't understand why both this draft and draft-ietf-sipbrandy-osrtp are needed. Wouldn't one draft do? > > Thanks, > Paul > > _______________________________________________ > mmusic mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic