Re: The MMUSIC WG has placed draft-hutton-mmusic-opportunistic-negotiation in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"
Flemming Andreasen <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.mmusic |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi Paul Does this satisfy any concerns you may have had with taking on this work and adopting the draft as a WG item ? Thanks -- Flemming (as MMUSIC co-chair) On 5/15/17 8:48 AM, Andy Hutton wrote: > On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 6:35 PM, Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei) > <[email protected]> wrote: >>> 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. >> > Agree this is largely procedural we started the work in SIPBrandy and > then realised we needed to update RFC 4568 so were forced to go to > MMUSIC to do that. The tidy thing to do now is just finish what we > started in both MMUSIC and SIPBrandy. > > Andy > > _______________________________________________ > mmusic mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic > . >