Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-05

"Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> Wed, 05 June 2013 04:57 UTC

Return-Path: <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD4D121F9371; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 21:57:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.298
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BzZM1h2j0c2L; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 21:57:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22f.google.com (mail-wi0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFEF721F93F8; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 21:57:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f175.google.com with SMTP id hn14so4419258wib.2 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 21:57:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type:x-mailer:thread-index:content-language; bh=DN7HQiaS+cJ6gFfXZNjWwjPAjjmZKuDdC//HQjp+Fjg=; b=Ct+90WIIhjARVq40FyI97CIL5kg7bAWd0bekEBRik57qJhrDNyLUsrXnlzmABNgBWo Qh1rjdHJRJCaQ21dfV19DqkyOUSH1E4YWls0tLgvwytXimHqcUJj/SK4VkPAYHUfjVMN M5iPJDdBknWkrDo9Y7w1+3ZRvYUVlYgfc2f2J8pQtHDLdDwSXbVvFEudPuuXhh1R6b2I a5e0yzTKnwDsypulokWGDIChEjyGtJkGkByjZoMR0TM46t1iOeVKw0NSDiHNdkXstdVa 9NySu7tRk8V+sPwT0tHpz0JwEdtGj90l3eKNpfAZiAnGaCg/0PCOjSc+v2hkUPopL7pc TiCQ==
X-Received: by 10.180.198.140 with SMTP id jc12mr4468790wic.53.1370408251521; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 21:57:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from RoniE ([109.64.225.31]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id b11sm7447741wiv.10.2013.06.04.21.57.29 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 04 Jun 2013 21:57:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
To: Simo.Veikkolainen@nokia.com, draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps.all@tools.ietf.org
References: <000301ce5c98$278d0220$76a70660$@gmail.com> <D09DAE6B636851459F7575D146EFB54B2405E4B4@008-AM1MPN1-026.mgdnok.nokia.com> <027001ce60b1$ba2ecbf0$2e8c63d0$@gmail.com> <D09DAE6B636851459F7575D146EFB54B2406EA58@008-AM1MPN1-025.mgdnok.nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <D09DAE6B636851459F7575D146EFB54B2406EA58@008-AM1MPN1-025.mgdnok.nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2013 07:56:16 +0300
Message-ID: <031901ce61a9$04af7ce0$0e0e76a0$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_031A_01CE61C2.29FE1470"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQD2ctd9kjZ9dlpMJt4mULENla+sLwGDWn0oAPcibgECiupmU5quQQiQ
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-05
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2013 04:57:35 -0000

Hi Simo,

This will be OK

Roni

 

From: Simo.Veikkolainen@nokia.com [mailto:Simo.Veikkolainen@nokia.com] 
Sent: 04 June, 2013 9:48 AM
To: ron.even.tlv@gmail.com;
draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps.all@tools.ietf.org
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; gen-art@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Gen-ART LC review of
draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-05

 

Would adding a statement like this at the end of 3.1.2 address your concern:

                Exceptions for other network types, such as for  the "ATM"
network type defined in [RFC3108], require additional specifications.

Regards,

Simo

 

From: ext Roni Even [mailto:ron.even.tlv@gmail.com] 
Sent: 4. kesäkuuta 2013 2:26
To: Veikkolainen Simo (Nokia-CTO/Espoo);
draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps.all@tools.ietf.org
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; gen-art@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Gen-ART LC review of
draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-05

 

Hi Simo,

For the PSTN case the document explain how to construct the m-line PSTN is
used based on the ccap using port 9. This is not specified for the ATM case.
So if it is not mentioned it should be clear that using  ccap for ATM is not
specified and need another document

Roni

 

From: Simo.Veikkolainen@nokia.com [mailto:Simo.Veikkolainen@nokia.com] 
Sent: 31 May, 2013 1:14 PM
To: ron.even.tlv@gmail.com;
draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps.all@tools.ietf.org
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; gen-art@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Gen-ART LC review of
draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-05

 

Hello Roni,

Please see my answer below prefixed with [SV].

 

From: ext Roni Even [mailto:ron.even.tlv@gmail.com] 
Sent: 29. toukokuuta 2013 21:13
To: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps.all@tools.ietf.org
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; gen-art@ietf.org
Subject: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-05

 

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you
may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-05

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2013–5–29

IETF LC End Date: 2013-6–4

IESG Telechat date: 

 

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as Standard track RFC.

 

 

Major issues:

 

Minor issues:

1.  I can understand from the draft that when you have IP and PSTN nettype
it is requires that the ccap will be for the PSTN. What happens if you want
to have the ccap nettype as ATM to be used with IP in the c=

 

[SV] If either endpoint does not support ATM, the “c=” line with the ATM
address would not get used (either it is not offered, or the Answerer
removes that from the SDP configurations). In case both endpoints actually
support and want to use ATM as alternative to IP based bearer, the
conventions in RFC3108 would need to be followed when crafting the SDP
configurations. That said, I haven’t taken a detailed look at RFC3108 to see
if the ATM based media can be negotiated using the SDP Capability
Negotiation framework and its current extensions.

 

Simo

 

Nits/editorial comments: