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

> On Aug 30, 2017, at 1:03 PM, Adam Roach <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 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.

I concur.

Chairs, what do you think?

> 
> 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.

I agree here, too. Christer, can you submit a revision with the changes so far?

Thanks!

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