Subject: [MMUSIC] 1 week WGLC on recent changes to draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp (-14 to -16)

From: Flemming Andreasen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 17:24:10 -0500

Greetings

We previously completed WGLC on draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp, however 
there has been some updates to the draft subsequently. We are hereby 
issuing a 1 week WGLC on the the changes from -14 to -16 only, as 
indicated by the following URL:

https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-14&url2=draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-16

If you have any comments on the updates, please provide those by 
Wednesday, January 25. Comments should be sent to the document authors 
and the MMUSIC WG list.

Thanks

-- Flemming (as MMUSIC co-chair)

---

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 17:53:53 +1100

A couple of nits:

Cl. 5.1 Extraneous ",":  "...Endpoints MUST support the cipher suites as 
defined in
    [I-D.ietf-mmusic-4572-update].<,>

Cl. 5.3 Para 2: The first sentence should probably use the same 
formulation as paragraph 3, "... that requires the establishment of..."

Cl. 5.4 Note - Missing "s" : "...an answer that include<s>.."

Cl. 6 Para 1 - Spelling error: "mechansim" -> "mechanism"

Otherwise OK.

Regards, Christian

On 19/01/2017 9:24 AM, Flemming Andreasen wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 07:57:39 +0000

Hi Christian,

I¹ll fix as suggested. Thanks!

Regards,

Christer

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 08:17:47 +0000

Pull request for the WGLC comments created:

https://github.com/cdh4u/draft-dtls-sdp/pull/22

Regards,

Christer

-----Original Message-----
From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 20 January 2017 09:58
To: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>; Flemming Andreasen <[email-masked]>; mmusic <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] 1 week WGLC on recent changes to draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp (-14 to -16)

Hi Christian,

Regards,

Christer

On 20/01/17 08:53, "Christian Groves" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>A couple of nits:
>
>Cl. 5.1 Extraneous ",":  "...Endpoints MUST support the cipher suites 
>as defined in
>>https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-14&url2=d
>>raf
>>t-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-16
>>
>>
>> Wednesday, January 25. Comments should be sent to the document 
>> authors and the MMUSIC WG list.
>>
>> Thanks
>>

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 11:58:12 +0000

Hi,

Below are comments that my colleague Nevenka provided (she has subscribed
to the list, but hasn¹t been accepted yet). I¹ll address them in a
separate reply.

----------

Hello,

I reviewed draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-16.txt and have the following
comments:

-         In Section 1 the following statement is not aligned with the
recent change which made "dtls-id" attribute globally unique i.e. the pair
of "dtls-id" attribute values (the attribute values of the offerer and the
answerer) uniquely identifies the DTLS association instead of the
"dtls-id" attribute pair in combination with "fingerprint" attribute
values (the attribute values of the offerer and the answerer). Thus the
following sentence requires modification:

"The ¹dtls-id¹ attribute pair in combination with ¹fingerprint¹ attribute
values from offer and answer SDP uniquely identifies the DTLS association."

-        In section 4 there are contradicting statements related to a
default value of "dtls-id" attribute:
"Default Value: empty value "
 
But the text says:
"No default value is defined for the SDP ¹dtls-id¹ attribute. "

Based on the above text  "empty value" should be replaced with "N/A²

-        I believe that RFC 4572 should be included in 14.2 since it is
(and should be) referenced in sections 9.2 & 9.3 from old text in RFC 5763
and RFC 7345, but the new text requires modification and should refer to
draft ietf-mmusic-4572-update (but currently still has reference to RFC
4572).

-        In addition I also found some editorial nits that I have provided
directly to the authors.

Kind regards,

Nevenka

--------

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 12:09:55 +0000

Hi ChrisŠ eeeh.. Nevenka,

Thanks for your comments! Please see inline.

>"The 'dtls-id' attribute pair in combination with Œfingerprint' attribute

I will replace the sentence with the following:

   "The pair of SDP 'dtls-id' attribute values (the attribute values of
    the offerer and the answerer) uniquely identifies the DTLS
    association."

>"No default value is defined for the SDP 'dtls-id' attribute. "
> 
>
>Based on the above text  "empty value" should be replaced with "N/A"

I agree. I¹ll replace ³empty value² with ³N/A².

>and RFC 7345, 

I will add a normative reference to RFC 4572 (even though the idnits tool
will complain about the reference not being used in the main text).

>but the new text requires modification and should refer to

Good catch. I¹ll replace the reference in the new text.

>-        In addition I also found some editorial nits that I have provided

I¹ll fix those (some are the same also found by Christian Groves).

Thanks!

Regards,

Christer

>>https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-14&url2=draf
>>t
>>-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-16
>>

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 13:08:32 +0000

Pull request has been updated with the changes based on Nevenka’s comments:

Regards,

Christer