Subject: [MMUSIC] [mmusic] #15 (rfc4566bis): 4566bis: Update the format of the IANA registries to reflect the dependency between addrtype and net type.

From: "mmusic issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 12:47:36 -0000

#15: 4566bis: Update the format of the IANA registries to reflect the dependency
between addrtype and net type.

 Comments: There does not seem an agreement on this but it looks to be an
 easy fix.

 @Chairs,

 Is this (and all other IANA related issues) supposed to be part of the
 4566bis document or a separate document? A separate document may keep
 4566bis clean and nice.

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Reporter:                |      Owner:  draft-ietf-mmusic-
  [email-masked]       |  [email-masked]
    Type:  defect        |     Status:  new
Priority:  major         |  Component:  rfc4566bis
 Version:                |   Severity:  Active WG Document
Keywords:                |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mmusic/trac/ticket/15>
mmusic <http://tools.ietf.org/mmusic/>

---

From: "mmusic issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 13:01:25 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * owner:  [email-masked] => [email-masked]

-- 
-------------------------------+--------------------------------
  Reporter:  [email-masked]  |      Owner:  [email-masked]
      Type:  defect            |     Status:  new
  Priority:  major             |  Component:  rfc4566bis
   Version:                    |   Severity:  Active WG Document
Resolution:                    |   Keywords:
-------------------------------+--------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mmusic/trac/ticket/15#comment:1>
mmusic <http://tools.ietf.org/mmusic/>

---

From: Flemming Andreasen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 17:35:48 -0400

My preference would be to do this in 4566bis since the timeline for a 
separate draft at this point is unlikely to be any faster. Why look in 
two places when we have an upcoming bis-draft ?

-- Flemming

---

From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 22:05:01 +0000

On Jul 19, 2014, at 12:35 AM, Flemming Andreasen <[email-masked]> wrote:

> My preference would be to do this in 4566bis since the timeline for a separate draft at this point is unlikely to be any faster.

I am not sure. Defining abnf for all 4566 attributes and agreeing on the templates might be a long process. 

> Why look in two places when we have an upcoming bis-draft ?

The readers should not be needing to read the other draft. Its main purpose is to fix the IANA issues. 4566bis just mentions that draft fixed the IANA issues.

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 18:21:06 -0400

One reason for a doing it all in 4566bis is that it then sets an example 
for future definitions.

Also, if we plan to put it in a different draft, then what do we put in 
4566bis? If we leave it as-is then there will be two different 
definitions of those attributes.

	Thanks
	Paul

On 7/18/14 6:05 PM, Ali C. Begen (abegen) wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>