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 3:27 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>> 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?
I would like to hear from a few more people first (and in particular 
some of the traditional stakeholders such as EKR, Cullen and Justin).

Thanks

-- Flemming (as MMUSIC co-chair)


>> 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