Subject: [AVTCORE] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-10: (with COMMENT)

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 13:22:45 -0700

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-10: Yes

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-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes/

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

Thank you for doing this update. You're helping avoid problems later.

This specification was pretty dense and difficult for me to understand
(there's quite a bit going on), until I got to the OLD TEXT/NEW TEXT in
Section 7, which made everything much clearer. You might consider moving
Section 7 forward, so that the organization of the document becomes "here
is the new multiplexing scheme", followed by "here's why the changes are
needed".

In these list entries:

   1.  It implicitly allocated codepoints for new STUN methods without
       an IANA registry reflecting these new allocations.
       
and

   3.  It implicitly allocated codepoints for new Transport Layer
       Security (TLS) ContentTypes without an IANA registry reflecting
       these new allocations.
       
is it correct to say "without entries in an IANA registry reflecting
these new allocations"? I was reading the text as saying there were no
registries for STUN methods or TLS ContentTypes, but that's not what you
meant, is it?