Subject: [MMUSIC] Comments on draft-ietf-mmusic-traffic-class-for-sdp-02

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 20:04:33 -0400

I have some comments on this new version of the document. (Sorry!)

Section 3:

I know we have been through this many times, and its much better now. 
But I still see one issue:

The ABNF says an adjective is a tcl-token, which allows "-" and 
alphanumerics. But then the text says that an adjective and be preceded 
by underscore ("_") to indicate that it is non-standard. This means you 
are *extending* the syntax in text beyond what the ABNF allows. IMO that 
is a very bad idea.

Instead, I recommend altering the syntax to permit the underscore in 
adjectives in the way you intend it to be used. I would suggest some 
syntax for this but I don't know if you want to permit non-standard 
qualified adjectives.

Also, as we have previously discussed, this way of using non-standard 
adjectives is quite analogous to the use "P-" or "X-" headers that has 
been found troublesome and generally banned. So I expect this might have 
trouble getting through IESG review. I thought we had discussed having 
the non-standard adjectives be registered using a 
first-come-first-served registration policy.

ISTM that the portion of this section that discusses "aq" ought to be in 
its own section, and then referenced from the iana considerations section.

Section 6.4:

I don't find any explanation of how or if to register qualified 
adjectives. The section title says "Unqualified Adjective Registration", 
but the inital set of registered values includes "aq" (the qualifier 
part of qualified adjectives), and some values intended to be qualfied 
by "aq:" (such as "admitted"). This certainly implies to me that I can 
use each of these as an unqualified adjective.

If the intent is to register such things then I would expect to see the 
full qualified adjectives listed for registration. E.g. "aq:admitted"

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2012 02:06:16 +0000

Please see inline.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat
> Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 8:05 PM
> To: IETF MMUSIC WG
> Subject: [MMUSIC] Comments on draft-ietf-mmusic-traffic-class-for-sdp-02
> 

I'd like to recommend removing the text regarding the '_' and leaving the ABNF as is. At IETF 84 I thought we agreed to address this by lowering the bar to register a new adjective.

Cheers,
Charles

> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic

---

From: James Polk <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2012 01:02:26 -0500

At 09:06 PM 11/2/2012, Charles Eckel (eckelcu) wrote:
>I'd like to recommend removing the text regarding the '_' and 
>leaving the ABNF as is. At IETF 84 I thought we agreed to address 
>this by lowering the bar to register a new adjective.

The -03 version at 
http://hive.packetizer.com/users/paulej/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mmusic-traffic-class-for-sdp-03.txt 
has removed the '_' from all the text.