Subject: [MMUSIC] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis-35: (with COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 01:42:43 -0700

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis-35: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you all for the work put into this document. I appreciate the section 10
about the differences with RFC 4566.

== COMMENTS ==

-- Section 5 (and others) --

Any reason why using an IPv4 examples rather than an IPv6 one? After all, we
are in 2019...

-- Section 5.2 --

Rather than using the relatively vague " compressed textual representation of
an IP version 6 address of the machine", please refer to RFC 5952.

-- Section 5.7 (and possibly others) --

Is there any reason not to follow RFC 5952 and use lowercase for all IPv6
addresses in this document ?

== NITS ==

-- Section 3.3 --

Using "World Wide Web (WWW)" seems old fashioned to me but no problem ;-)

-- Section 4.5 --

Suggestion to add reference to the ISO character sets.

-- Section 5 --

When using IPv4 unicast addresses, please use the example ones.

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2019 17:32:02 -0400

Éric,

Thank you for the careful review. Responses inline below...

> introductory paragraph, however.)
...
> Any reason why using an IPv4 examples rather than an IPv6 one? After all, we

Only reason is history. All of the examples are pretty much unchanged 
from long ago, and there never seemed to be any great motivation to 
change them.

> an IP version 6 address of the machine", please refer to RFC 5952.

This seems like a good idea.

> addresses in this document ?

No reason. I will change them.

> Using "World Wide Web (WWW)" seems old fashioned to me but no problem ;-)

Again, this is history. I am inclined not to gratuitously change it.

> Suggestion to add reference to the ISO character sets.

There is a reference to RFC3629 that covers ISO 10646.

Are you referring to the mention of ISO 8859-1? The best reference I 
have found is to https://www.iso.org/standard/28245.html, and it is a 
pay wall. Since the reference is only an example and non-normative, I'm 
inclined to leave as-is.

> When using IPv4 unicast addresses, please use the example ones.

Good catch. I agree these need to be fixed. I'll have the scrub the 
document looking for them.

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 05:22:35 +0000

Paul

Thank you for your reply and the coming edits. 

I am fine with living with a document looking so old fashioned ;-)

-éric

On 28/05/2019, 23:32, "Paul Kyzivat" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    Éric,

    ...

    

    

    

    
    
    	Thanks,
    	Paul