Re: The MMUSIC WG has placed draft-hutton-mmusic-opportunistic-negotiation in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

> On May 9, 2017, at 1:28 PM, Paul Kyzivat <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 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.

I see your point but Currently SIPBRANDY is chartered to produce Opportunistic SRTP as a BCP. There is also a milestone to inform MMUSIC or other appropriate WGs of any changes needed to support Opportunistic SRTP (Not expected to be published as an RFC).  I think SIPBRANDY is just carrying out what they are chartered to do.

-G

> 
> 	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
>> 
>> 
>