Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis-35: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 08:45:45 -0400

On 6/3/19 10:36, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> Alissa,
>
> On 5/28/19 3:35 PM, Alissa Cooper via Datatracker wrote:
>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> DISCUSS:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Section 8.2.8:
>>
>> "In the RFC specifications that register new values for SDP "media",
>>     "proto", "fmt", "bwtype", "nettype", and "addrtype" parameters, the
>>     authors MUST include the following information for IANA to place in
>>     the appropriate registry:"
>>
>> It doesn't look like all the fields that are listed after this text 
>> actually
>> appear in the registries. For some of these I don't see why the 
>> information
>> would be put into the registries (e.g., contact name, contact email 
>> address,
>> since those appear in the RFCs themselves). I think this needs to be 
>> clarified.
>
> OK. There are two things going on here: the information that must be 
> provided when registering a new value, and then which of those items 
> need to appear in the registry. The distinction isn't clear.
>
> For items where the registration requirements are less that "document 
> required" the information must be in the registry since there is no 
> place else for it to appear. But when a document is required then in 
> principle the name of the item and a reference to the document is all 
> that is *necessary* in the registry, and any additional information is 
> for convenience of access.
>
> I've found that this distinction often isn't clearly made, especially 
> in older stuff.
>
> I can look into this further for all the SDP registries. 

Paul --

I see that there are some changes in -36 around this text ("IANA will 
populate its registries with some or all of these values"). This isn't 
really clear enough for IANA to know what to do. Could you produce a new 
version that is explicit regarding which of these collected fields are 
published? (e.g.: "IANA will populate its registries with the parameter 
name, the parameter type, and the document reference.")

Thanks.

/a

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 16:23:18 -0400

> name, the parameter type, and the document reference.")

I *can*. But is it necessary for these instructions to be included in 
the draft? ISTM that the structures IANA has now often differ from 
(probably inadequate) instructions in drafts. My impression is that iana 
has considerable discretion about how this stuff is structures in the 
registries. Could I just work with IANA on how to do it?

But if putting this into -37 is the best way then I am happy to do that.

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 16:39:58 -0400

On 7/24/19 16:23, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>> populate its registries with some or all of these values"). This 
>> isn't really clear enough for IANA to know what to do. Could you 
>> produce a new version that is explicit regarding which of these 
>> collected fields are published? (e.g.: "IANA will populate its 
>> registries with the parameter name, the parameter type, and the 
>> document reference.")
>
> (probably inadequate) instructions in drafts. My impression is that 
> iana has considerable discretion about how this stuff is structures in 
> the registries. Could I just work with IANA on how to do it?
>

Even if it's not the best -- and it might be -- it's certainly the fastest.

To be clear, I sent my email after conferring with Alissa, and it is my 
impression that it would take more than a little convincing for her to 
allow the current text in -36 to move forward, if it is indeed possible 
at all.

/a

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 17:24:55 -0400

Even if IANA understands what you want and gets it perfect when they
create the registry, there is value in having the specifics recorded
in the IANA Considerations in the published RFC.  It's not hard to do,
so let's just do it, yes?

Barry