Re: Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-28: (with COMMENT) - All comments should now have been addressed

On 8/30/17 04:31, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have updated the PR. It should now address the IESG comments given by
> Adam, Ekr, Alexey and Mirja.
>
> https://github.com/cdh4u/draft-dtls-sdp/pull/35
>
>
> In the latest commit (#7):
>
> - Section 7 (Transport Protocol Considerations) was removed.
> - Text regarding correlation of SDP and TLS connection was added to the
> Security Considerations (as requested by Mirja).
>
> Please let me know if there is something I¹ve forgot.

The list of issues I posted to MMUSIC included the question about 
whether ufrag change requires a DTLS restart in the absence of a 
'tls-id'. There was a bit of discussion on that list which seemed to 
conclude that it should *not*. I believe the document needs to reflect 
this -- but I'd specifically ask the MMUSIC chairs whether they see 
consensus on this point first.

On the topic of looking over your changes: it's still easier to read a 
text-form document than digging through XML source. Version numbers are 
free. I encourage you to drop a new version whenever you ask people to 
look at changes.

/a

_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic