Subject: RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-05

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 02:26:05 +0300

Hi Simo,

For the PSTN case the document explain how to construct the m-line PSTN is
used based on the ccap using port 9. This is not specified for the ATM case.
So if it is not mentioned it should be clear that using  ccap for ATM is not
specified and need another document

Roni

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 31 May, 2013 1:14 PM
To: [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Gen-ART LC review of
draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-05

Hello Roni,

Please see my answer below prefixed with [SV].

From: ext Roni Even [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 29. toukokuuta 2013 21:13
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-05

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you
may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-05

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2013-5-29

IETF LC End Date: 2013-6-4

IESG Telechat date: 

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as Standard track RFC.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

1.       I can understand from the draft that when you have IP and PSTN
nettype it is requires that the ccap will be for the PSTN. What happens if
you want to have the ccap nettype as ATM to be used with IP in the c=

[SV] If either endpoint does not support ATM, the "c=" line with the ATM
address would not get used (either it is not offered, or the Answerer
removes that from the SDP configurations). In case both endpoints actually
support and want to use ATM as alternative to IP based bearer, the
conventions in RFC3108 would need to be followed when crafting the SDP
configurations. That said, I haven't taken a detailed look at RFC3108 to see
if the ATM based media can be negotiated using the SDP Capability
Negotiation framework and its current extensions.

Simo

Nits/editorial comments:

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 06:48:24 +0000

Would adding a statement like this at the end of 3.1.2 address your concern:
                Exceptions for other network types, such as for  the "ATM" network type defined in [RFC3108], require additional specifications.
Regards,
Simo

From: ext Roni Even [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 4. kesäkuuta 2013 2:26
To: Veikkolainen Simo (Nokia-CTO/Espoo); [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-05

Hi Simo,
For the PSTN case the document explain how to construct the m-line PSTN is used based on the ccap using port 9. This is not specified for the ATM case. So if it is not mentioned it should be clear that using  ccap for ATM is not specified and need another document
Roni

From: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 31 May, 2013 1:14 PM
To: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>; [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>; [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-05

Hello Roni,

From: ext Roni Even [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 29. toukokuuta 2013 21:13
To: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>; [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-05

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2013-5-29

IESG Telechat date:

Major issues:

Minor issues:

1.       I can understand from the draft that when you have IP and PSTN nettype it is requires that the ccap will be for the PSTN. What happens if you want to have the ccap nettype as ATM to be used with IP in the c=

[SV] If either endpoint does not support ATM, the "c=" line with the ATM address would not get used (either it is not offered, or the Answerer removes that from the SDP configurations). In case both endpoints actually support and want to use ATM as alternative to IP based bearer, the conventions in RFC3108 would need to be followed when crafting the SDP configurations. That said, I haven't taken a detailed look at RFC3108 to see if the ATM based media can be negotiated using the SDP Capability Negotiation framework and its current extensions.

Simo

Nits/editorial comments:

---

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 07:56:16 +0300

Hi Simo,

This will be OK

Roni

Sent: 04 June, 2013 9:48 AM

                Exceptions for other network types, such as for  the "ATM"
network type defined in [RFC3108], require additional specifications.

Regards,

Simo

To: Veikkolainen Simo (Nokia-CTO/Espoo);

Hi Simo,

Roni

Hello Roni,

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2013–5–29

IETF LC End Date: 2013-6–4

IESG Telechat date: 

 

Major issues:

Minor issues:

1.  I can understand from the draft that when you have IP and PSTN nettype
it is requires that the ccap will be for the PSTN. What happens if you want
to have the ccap nettype as ATM to be used with IP in the c=

[SV] If either endpoint does not support ATM, the “c=” line with the ATM
address would not get used (either it is not offered, or the Answerer
removes that from the SDP configurations). In case both endpoints actually
support and want to use ATM as alternative to IP based bearer, the
conventions in RFC3108 would need to be followed when crafting the SDP
configurations. That said, I haven’t taken a detailed look at RFC3108 to see
if the ATM based media can be negotiated using the SDP Capability
Negotiation framework and its current extensions.

Simo

Nits/editorial comments:

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 13:24:31 +0300

Roni, Simo - thank you for the review and for addressing the issue. I plan to ballot a No-Objection for this draft.

Jari