Subject: [MMUSIC] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-mux-exclusive-07

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 15:43:16 -0500

Hi,

Here is my AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-mux-exclusive-07. I think 
this is almost ready for IETF last call, but would like to see some 
discussion of my substantive comments first.

Thanks!

Ben.

----------------

Substantive:

-- Why the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer? I assume it's due to the two quoted 
"OLD" paragraphs from RFC 5761. That RFC is post-5378, but also contains 
the disclaimer. Has there been any discussion about getting permission 
to use the standard boilerplate? (If not, why not?)

-- 1, 3rd paragraph:

I’d like to see a bit more guidance here. What do we mean by 
application? I _think_ we mean something like WebRTC, where there are no 
legacy UAs to talk to. But I’d hate to see someone implement this in a 
SIP UA that talks to other arbitrary SIP UAs, just because the 
implementor didn’t want to bother with the legacy case.

Editorial:

- 4.5, last paragraph:
It seems odd to find 2119 keywords in a "NOTE". I usually think of such 
things as parenthetical sidebars, not core protocol definition. Please 
consider dropping the "NOTE:" prefix.

-- 11.2, reference to bundle:

Outdated reference. (The RFC editor will fix this, but if there happens 
to be an update before then...)

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 17:23:27 -0400

> to use the standard boilerplate? (If not, why not?)

I wouldn't expect the disclaimer to be required in this case. Wouldn't 
the paragraphs being quoted as "OLD" count as fair use under copyright law?

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 02:31:48 +0000

Hi,

The idnits tool informed about pre-5378 content, so I thought a way to fix that was to include the disclaimer.

I can remove the disclaimer. But, what shall I then say if someone asks about the idnits indication?

Regards,

Christer

Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Paul Kyzivat<mailto:[email-masked]>
Sent: ‎22/‎06/‎2016 00:23
To: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-mux-exclusive-07

        Thanks,
        Paul

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

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 06:52:53 +0000

Hi,

...

>-- 1, 3rd paragraph:
>
>I¹d like to see a bit more guidance here. What do we mean by
>legacy UAs to talk to. But I¹d hate to see someone implement this in a
>implementor didn¹t want to bother with the legacy case.

What about the following:

   "Some newer applications that do not require backward compatibility
   with peers that cannot multiplex RTCP might choose to not implement
   separation of RTP and RTCP.  Examples of such applications are W3C
   WEBRTC [W3C.WD-webrtc-20120209] applications, that are not required
   to interoperate with non-WEBRTC clients.  For such applications, this
   document defines an SDP attribute to signal intent to require
   multiplexing."

>consider dropping the "NOTE:" prefix.

I¹ll drop it.

>to be an update before then...)

I¹ll fix it.

Thanks!

Regards,

Christer

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 09:44:48 -0500

On 22 Jun 2016, at 1:52, Christer Holmberg wrote:

[...]

>    document defines an SDP attribute to signal intent to require

That's a good start. Would it make sense to add something to the effect 
of the following:

"The use of this attribute in SDP offers by user agents that ever need 
to interoperate with peers that do not support RTC/RTCP multiplexing may 
harm interoperability."

[...]

Thanks!

Ben.

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 15:12:52 +0000

I'll add the text you suggested and submit a new version of the draft.

Regards,

Christer

Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Ben Campbell<mailto:[email-masked]>
Sent: ‎22/‎06/‎2016 17:44
To: Christer Holmberg<mailto:[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>; mmusic<mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-mux-exclusive-07

[...]

[...]

Thanks!

Ben.

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 19:32:09 -0500

(+ Magnus and Colin)

The idnits tool will warn about that anytime you update a pre-5378 
draft, or you update a later draft with the pre-5378 disclaimer. That 
doesn't necessarily mean you need the disclaimer--it's just telling you 
to think about it.

I think this is a borderline case, since there is in fact quoted text. 
As an individual, I agree with Paul that it should count as fair use by 
US standards, but I don't know about other jurisdictions. The cleanest 
option would be to see if the previous authors (copied) will agree to 
letting you use the text without the disclaimer.

Ben.

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 11:21:31 +0100

> On 24 Jun 2016, at 01:32, Ben Campbell <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> (+ Magnus and Colin)
> 
> The idnits tool will warn about that anytime you update a pre-5378 draft, or you update a later draft with the pre-5378 disclaimer. That doesn't necessarily mean you need the disclaimer--it's just telling you to think about it.
> 
> I think this is a borderline case, since there is in fact quoted text. As an individual, I agree with Paul that it should count as fair use by US standards, but I don't know about other jurisdictions. The cleanest option would be to see if the previous authors (copied) will agree to letting you use the text without the disclaimer.

I’m happy for you to use any parts of RFC 5761 I wrote under the new terms, without the disclaimer.

-- 
Colin Perkins
https://csperkins.org/

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 15:33:41 +0200

Hi,

I allow you to use any parts of RFC 5761 I wrote under the new terms, 
without the disclaimer.

Cheers

Magnus

-- 

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Services, Media and Network features, Ericsson Research EAB/TXM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                 | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:41:10 -0500

On 24 Jun 2016, at 5:21, Colin Perkins wrote:

>> doesn't necessarily mean you need the disclaimer--it's just telling 
>> you to think about it.
>>
>> I think this is a borderline case, since there is in fact quoted 
>> text. As an individual, I agree with Paul that it should count as 
>> fair use by US standards, but I don't know about other jurisdictions. 
>> The cleanest option would be to see if the previous authors (copied) 
>> will agree to letting you use the text without the disclaimer.
>

Thanks, Colin!

Ben.