Re: The MMUSIC WG has placed draft-hutton-mmusic-opportunistic-negotiation in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"
Paul Kyzivat <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.mmusic |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 5/9/17 1:13 PM, Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei) wrote: > 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). OK. But then couldn't everything be put into the MMUSIC document? ISTM that given the limited content in these documents that splitting it into two, with a lot of overlap, is confusing. Thanks, Paul > -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 > >