Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC: draft-ietf-mmusic-connectivity-precon-05.txt

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:57:21 +0200

Jean Francois, Joerg,

when do you think you will get around to requesting the publication of 
the draft below?

Thanks,

Gonzalo

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC: draft-ietf-mmusic-connectivity-precon-05.txt
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:00:13 +0200
From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
To: Jean-Francois Mule <[email-masked]>
CC: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], 
[email-masked],	Joerg Ott <[email-masked]>

Hi Jean Francois,

we have not received any further comments on the draft. So, you can go
ahead request its publication as soon as you get some time to the PROTO
writeup.

Thanks,

Gonzalo

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: WGLC: draft-ietf-mmusic-connectivity-precon-05.txt
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 05:49:37 -0600
From: Jean-Francois Mule <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
CC: Joerg Ott <[email-masked]>,        Gonzalo Camarillo
<[email-masked]>,        <[email-masked]>,
<[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>

    This is to announce the Working Group Last Call on
	draft-ietf-mmusic-connectivity-precon-05.

    The WGLC starts today and will end on November 7 2008.  Please send
your comments and any open issues to the MMUSIC list and the authors.

Thank you in advance for taking the time to read this document and
provide your review comments.

Jean-Francois.
[email-masked]

_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic

---

From: "Jean-Francois Mule" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:31:34 -0700

Gonzalo,

   First, as indicated privately to you, my apologies for the delay in
getting to this.

   Reviewing the draft while doing the proto write-up, I have a few
comments that need to be discussed.  The main one is the use of the
defunct RTP No-op mechanism in avt in several places in the document.

   Please read below and let me know if you think it is fair to update
the document.  If you think it would cause additional delays for no good
reasons, I could be convinced to put some editorial changes in the proto
write-up.

Jean-Francois.

1. aBNF in Section 3.1
change 
< precondition-type = "conn" | "qos" | token

with
> precondition-type = "conn" / "qos" / token

2. RTP No-op to be changed to RTP keepalive
I believe RTP No-op is not progressing in AVT, yet this ID points to it
in several places.  Consider referencing
draft-ietf-avt-app-rtp-keepalive-05.txt instead.
RTP No-op appears in sections 3.2, 4 an entire paragraph on page 8 in
section 4.2, in section 6 and rtpmap attribute page 12  (as well as the
informative ref. section).
This is what makes me uncomfortable to request publication without an ID
update.  It is mostly informative but it appears in several places in
the document.

3. Section 4 and the informative text
Paragraph 1 says: " The following rules guide which connectivity
verification mechanism to use:"
All of this text is informative.  Should those rules be at least
RECOMMENDED (SHOULD?)? 

4. References:
	stun-bis in now RFC 5389
	I-D.ietf-avt-rtp-no-op per the above comments.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gonzalo Camarillo [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 1:57 PM
> To: Jean-Francois Mule; Joerg Ott
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]