Subject: [MEDIACTRL] AD review: draft-ietf-mediactrl-mixer-control package-09

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 15:50:21 -0600

This draft is essentially ready to go. I have two questions/comments  
for the group.

1) As written, the reference to the XCON datamodel document needs to  
be normative.
      (You have to know what's defined there to know when a prefix is  
required, and
        realistically, it's a must read to use any of the video  
layouts defined there).
      I'm expecting XCON to pubreq that document within a couple of  
weeks, so making
      the reference normative shouldn't slow down publication of this  
document.
      Would anyone object to making that reference normative?

2) I'm not easily finding where framework (or this document) says what  
happens
     when part of a command with multiple components fails. For  
instance, in section
     4.2.2, there's an example of a join command that operates two  
different volumes.
     If one of those fails for some reason, does the other one fail  
with it? Where is
     the text that says this is so?

Once we resolve those two, I expect to send framework, ivr-control,  
and mixer-control
into IETF LC.

RjS

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 13:37:38 -0600

Dear Mediactrl,

> This draft is essentially ready to go. I have two questions/comments  for 
> the group.

Robert is really trying to get Framework, IVR and MIXER into IETF Last Call 
for publication, but we need to answer two questions that he asked. Please 
look at these carefully.

> 1) As written, the reference to the XCON datamodel document needs to  be 
> normative.
>        realistically, it's a must read to use any of the video  layouts 
> defined there).
>      I'm expecting XCON to pubreq that document within a couple of  weeks, 
> so making

I think Robert is correct here. I think the only possible alternative is to 
require all video layouts to be prefixed with a label, whether it's defined 
in [XCON] or not (that's the dependency that caught Robert's eye). Does 
anyone strongly disagree with moving the reference? to Normative?

Could the authors move this reference to Normative as requested and post a 
new revision?

>     when part of a command with multiple components fails. For  instance, 
> in section
>     If one of those fails for some reason, does the other one fail  with 
> it? Where is

We really need to make sure we all have the same understanding here... 
Please state yours on this mailing list! ... but Robert said he would not 
gate IETF Last Call on this question.

Thanks,

Spencer

> Once we resolve those two, I expect to send framework, ivr-control,  and 
> mixer-control
> into IETF LC.
>
> RjS