MMUSIC Working Group at IETF 101
================================
The MMUSIC working group met at IETF #101 in London, UK on Friday, March 23, 2018 from 9:30 to 10:30.
The meeting was chaired by Flemming Andreasen and Bo Burman.
Roni Even and the chairs took notes, and Jonathan Lennox acted as Jabber relay.
The meeting was broadcast live and recorded by the Meetecho team. The recording is available at: 
    http://www.meetecho.com/ietf101/recordings#MMUSIC

Below is the final agenda:
9:30-9:45	Introduction and Status Update (15 mins, Chairs)
9:45-10:00	4566bis (15 mins, Ali Begen)
		draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-rfc4566bis-25
10:00-10:30	SDP Offer/Answer Procedures for ICE – Open Issues (30 mins, Suhas Nandakumar)
		draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp-16

Introduction and Status Update
------------------------------
Slides: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/slides-101-mmusic-chair-slides-00

The chairs presented their slides with the agenda and an update about the activities since the last meeting. The chairs were looking for feedback on draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-uks. Jonathan Lennox and Marc Petit-Huguenin offered to review.

4566bis
-------
Slides: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/slides-101-mmusic-4566bis-00

Ali Begen presented the slides () summarizing the open issues, numbered as discussed on the mailing list:
    *	Open Issue #3 - What is the time zone for the start and stop
    	sub-fields, and what is the relation to the time zone adjustment field?
	It is UTC and time zone adjustment is to handle daylight saving for
	repeated meetings.
    *	Open Issue #4 - Are values integers or real (as decided at IETF 92),
   	and what of Magnus’ recommendation to only use with fmtp and deprecate
	on media stream level?
	Flemming and Colin objected to deprecate on media stream level. There
	was support in the room to allow usage of fractional values and it
	will therefore be kept.
    *	Open Issue #7 - Why is existing registration of RTP/SAVP in RFC 3711
    	not used and what should we do with current udptl registration that
	references T.38 but should rather reference RFC 7345?
	There was some discussion on RTP/SAVP, concluding that 4566bis should
	only register what RFC 4566 did, RTP/AVP and UDP, remove mentioning
	SAVP and just say that there are other “proto” registrations.
	There was also discussion on how to handle udptl, concluding that the
	registry information for udptl is incorrect but that 4566bis will
	grandfather T.38 and keep the text as is. The currently defined
	registration procedure should however be changed to not only allow
	referencing standards track RFC. [Action: Authors]
    *	Open Issue #8 - Where are media format (“fmt”) registrations to be
    	done?
	Colin commented that the only “proto” that currently has a
	well-defined registration policy (in RFC 3555) are the ones based on
	RTP. A discussion concluded to clarify that the media format namespace
	and registration procedures depends on “proto” value and that “fmt”
	registration procedures must also be specified when registering a new
	“proto”. Jonathan offered to provide text giving some guidance.
	[Action: Jonathan and authors]
    *	Open Issue #9 - Should IANA registration of “CT” and “AS” bandwidth
    	specifiers be updated to point to 4566bis instead of to RFC 4566 and
	draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes as today?
	Ben C commented that the current text “should be registered” seems
	un-enforceable and that the WG should pick a text pointing to one of
	the currently defined procedures. This is also applicable to open
	issue #7. It was concluded to re-check IANA registry and refine text
	in 4566bis accordingly. [Action: Authors]

SDP Offer/Answer Procedures for ICE - Open Issues
-------------------------------------------------
Slides: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/slides-101-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp-00

Marc Petit-Huguenin presented the slides (). The authors and Christer H had met during the IETF week to discuss the remaining issues. Marc said that there should soon be responses to comments on the mailing list and that a new version could be expected before May. Ben C expressed concern about the long time. Chairs will contact authors and try to expedite draft progress [Action: chairs].