Subject: [MMUSIC] RTSP 2.0: IANA rules for status codes

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 2009 13:47:10 +0100

Hi,

I would like to raise a discussion about the IANA rules for status
codes. It is currently defined as Standards action. That is pretty high
bar and block other SDOs from doing extensions using status codes. I
think there might be a point in doing Specification required with Expert
Review.

What is the WG's view on this?

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Martin Stiemerling" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 13:53:29 +0100

Hi Magnus, all,

Expert review is IMHO a sufficient level for status codes. 

  Martin

[email-masked]

NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division
NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Magnus Westerlund
> Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2009 1:47 PM
> To: mmusic (E-mail)
> Subject: [MMUSIC] RTSP 2.0: IANA rules for status codes
> 
> Hi,
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic

---

From: "Jean-Francois Mule" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 03:48:53 -0700

Hi Magnus,

  We discussed this during the WG meeting in Hiroshima.  

   I agree that having a Standards Track RFC may be too high of a bar. I believe however that "IETF Consensus" (per RFC 2434) is preferable to "Specification Required" since it requires an RFC to be published in IETF.
As I stated during the meeting, my concern with "Specification Required" is that status codes can often be re-used or made more generic.  I do not think it is a good idea to have any SDO or specification body create their own status codes for their specific use of RTSP.

Jean-Francois.

> Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2009 5:47 AM
> To: mmusic (E-mail)

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:14:30 +0100

> As I stated during the meeting, my concern with "Specification Required" is that status codes can often be re-used or made more generic.  I do not think it is a good idea to have any SDO or specifi…

As we are using RFC 5226 language I assume that you are suggesting:

      IETF Review - (Formerly called "IETF Consensus" in
            [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS]) New values are assigned only through
            RFCs that have been shepherded through the IESG as AD-
            Sponsored or IETF WG Documents [RFC3932] [RFC3978].  The
            intention is that the document and proposed assignment will
            be reviewed by the IESG and appropriate IETF WGs (or
            experts, if suitable working groups no longer exist) to
            ensure that the proposed assignment will not negatively
            impact interoperability or otherwise extend IETF protocols
            in an inappropriate or damaging manner.

            To ensure adequate community review, such documents are
            shepherded through the IESG as AD-sponsored (or WG)
            documents with an IETF Last Call.

I think this is better than Standards track, and do allow AD sponsored
informational documentation of other SDOs proposals. I personally are
still willing to suggest Specification required and make it clear that
there will be expert review, and that the reviewer may refuse the request.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

IETF Transport Area Director

---

From: "Jean-Francois Mule" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 07:18:24 -0700

Yes, IETF Review is what I would prefer.

Jean-Francois.

> From: Magnus Westerlund [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 5:15 AM
> To: Jean-Francois Mule
> Cc: mmusic (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] RTSP 2.0: IANA rules for status codes
> 
> >    I agree that having a Standards Track RFC may be too high of a
> bar. I believe however that "IETF Consensus" (per RFC 2434) is
> preferable to "Specification Required" since it requires an RFC to
> be published in IETF.
> > As I stated during the meeting, my concern with "Specification
> Required" is that status codes can often be re-used or made more
> generic.  I do not think it is a good idea to have any SDO or
> specification body create their own status codes for their specific
> use of RTSP.
> 
> Fdrvgatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079