Hi Suhas, The proposed edits would be fine with me. Thank you for addressing all my concerns.
Regards, Dan On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 9:12 PM, Suhas Nandakumar (snandaku) < [email protected]> wrote: > 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]; draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux- > [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
