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

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.


Correct, I forgot to mention that the PR yet does not address the ufrag
issue, waiting for a WG consensus.

Note that there is currently a discussion in RTCWEB on whether a ufrag
change should trigger an ICE restart. But, as an ICE restart does not
automatically trigger a DTLS restart I assume it won’t affect
draft-dtls-sdp. Worth keeping in mind, though.


>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 will submit a new version.

Regards,

Christer