Hello Dan
My apologies for missing on the updates. For each concern raised , here are my responses. .1. The use of B - 'Both' terminology used to indicate that an attribute is specified S - Session Level and M - Medial Level (e.g. in Section 5) may be confusing, as there is a third possible level SR - Source Level. Actually S + M would probably be more clear. [Suhas] - As discussed in our earlier email , i will be updating the description of 'B' to imply the attribute applies to both Session and Media level 2.Section 5.54 includes a note referring to the TBD content. 'As per section 9.1 of [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation], there exists no publicly available specification that defines procedures for multiplexing/demultiplexing fax protocols flows over a single 5-tuple. Once such a specification is available, the multiplexing category assignments for the attributes in this section could be revisited.' Assuming the missing specification will be publicly available sometime in the future - how will this information be added? Revise this RFC? The question applies to other TBD marked in the 'Mux Category' column of the tables in Section 5 (in 5.42, 5.44, ...) [Suhas] Section 15.2 of the latest version does address how to deal with registry updates for the categories. Excerpt below " Any future updates to the "Mux Category" column values needs to follow the existing registration policy of the affected table (Section 8.2.4.2 of [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis]). Also, the procedures from Section 8.2.4.1 of [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis] needs to be followed when assigning "Mux Category" value for the newly defined SDP attributes. " Please let me know your thoughts. I can produce a new version along wth IESG Evaluation comments next week. Thanks Suhas ________________________________ From: Dan Romascanu <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 2:59 AM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Gen-ART telechat review for draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes-14 I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. For more information, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes-14 Reviewer: Dan Romascanu Review Date: 10/26/16 IETF LC End Date: 8/10/16 IESG Telechat date: 10/28/16 Summary: Ready. The more important issue in my initial review was clarified in draft-14. Two minor issues were not, but these are not essential. Major issues: Minor issues: 1. The use of B - 'Both' terminology used to indicate that an attribute is specified S - Session Level and M - Medial Level (e.g. in Section 5) may be confusing, as there is a third possible level SR - Source Level. Actually S + M would probably be more clear. 2. Section 5.54 includes a note referring to the TBD content. 'As per section 9.1 of [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation], there exists no publicly available specification that defines procedures for multiplexing/demultiplexing fax protocols flows over a single 5-tuple. Once such a specification is available, the multiplexing category assignments for the attributes in this section could be revisited.' Assuming the missing specification will be publicly available sometime in the future - how will this information be added? Revise this RFC? The question applies to other TBD marked in the 'Mux Category' column of the tables in Section 5 (in 5.42, 5.44, ...) Nits/editorial comments: Regards, Dan
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
