Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-options-registry-01.txt> (IANA Registry for Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) Options) to Proposed Standard

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 20:22:52 +0300

Hello,

Some comments on this document, currently in Last Call.

> Network Working Group                                      M. Westerlund
> Internet-Draft                                                  Ericsson
> Updates:5245  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5245>  (if approved)                                   C. Perkins
> Intended status: Standards Track                   University of Glasgow
> Expires: September 29, 2011                               March 28, 2011
I don't see why the intended status for this document is Standards 
Track.  Wouldn't Informational be enough?  Could you please justify why 
have you chosen it?

Your registry description does not mention what is the precise name of 
the registry.  While everybody understands that is sands for ICE 
options, it would be useful to give IANA distinctive guidelines on its 
name (this is also required in RFC5226, Section 4.2, 1) in the list; 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226#section-4.2).

 From RFC 5226, also Section 4.2:

>   5) Initial assignments and reservations.  Clear instructions
>           should be provided to identify any initial assignments or
>           registrations.  In addition, any ranges that are to be reserved
>   for "Private Use", "Reserved", "Unassigned", etc. should be
>           clearly indicated.

Are there any initial assignments?  Your document mentions one option; 
shouldn't it be registered?

>   A registration request MUST include the following information:
>
>     [ . . . ]
Shall this be mentioned as a registration template?

> o  Email and Address of the Contact person
I think you should add the name of the contact person to the name of 
this field as well.

I see, except some aforementioned issues, this document conforms to RFC 
5226, particularly Section 4.2.

Thanks in advance for considering my comments.

Mykyta Yevstifeyev

28.04.2011 19:01, The IESG wrote:
> The IESG has received a request from the Multiparty Multimedia Session
> Control WG (mmusic) to consider the following document:
> - 'IANA Registry for Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE)
> Options'
>    <draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-options-registry-01.txt>  as a Proposed Standard
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> [email-masked] mailing lists by 2011-05-12. Exceptionally, comments may be
> sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>
> The file can be obtained via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-options-registry/
>
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-options-registry/
>
>
>
> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
> _______________________________________________
> IETF-Announce mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
>

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 10:47:13 +0200

Hi Mykyta,

Thanks for the review.

See inline for response.

Mykyta Yevstifeyev skrev 2011-04-28 19:22:
>> Updates: 5245 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5245> (if approved)                                   C. Perkins

> Track.  Wouldn't Informational be enough?  Could you please justify why

I don't think we have put much thought into it. But one reason I can
think of is to have it on the same maturity level as the ICE
specification itself. Thus enabling a merge of this registry into an
update of RFC 5245 without forcing it to be recycled as proposed.

> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226#section-4.2).

Yes, I agree that it should be included in Section 3.1 of our document
rather than only in the title which says "Interactive Connectivity
Establishment (ICE) Options"

> shouldn't it be registered?

No, because when draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-ecn gets published that will
actually do the registration. As that document isn't approved yet and in
fact still not WG last called this registry will first be created empty
and then populated.

> Shall this be mentioned as a registration template?

It isn't written as one. It is a list of what needs to be present in the
registration. And I think a template would be more focused on what needs
to the general categories rather than the information. Thus I don't want
this as registration template.

> I think you should add the name of the contact person to the name of

As the two first bullets are:

   o  Name of contact person for the registration

I don't quite understand your comment. Do you want us to merge the two
entries? This as the contact persons will need to provide name, email
and address. I am fine with merging them and this is likely a slight
improvement.

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: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 19:04:14 +0300

Magnus,

29.04.2011 11:47, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>>> Updates: 5245 (if approved)                                   C. Perkins
This is a good reason, so I'll agree with it.
> Establishment (ICE) Options"
Agreed on this.  Such name is fine, IMO.
> fact still not WG last called this registry will first be created empty
So you should have mentioned this in the draft as well.
> this as registration template.
OK, this matter is not very important.
> and address. I am fine with merging them and this is likely a slight
No, I didn't propose to merge it.  I just proposed to rename this field 
as "Name, Email and Addresses of the Contact Person".

Thanks for taking time to response to my comments.

Mykyta Yevstifeyev