Subject: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-duplication-grouping-01

From: Ari Keränen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 20:03:43 +0300

This is to start a 2-week Working Group Last Call for

draft-ietf-mmusic-duplication-grouping-01

The WGLC ends on April 19th, 2013.

Please review the document send your comments both to the authors and to 
the MMUSIC mailing list. If you review the document but do not have any 
comments, please send a note to that effect as well.

The document is available here:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-duplication-grouping-01

Thanks,
Ari

---

From: Ari Keränen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 01:27:44 +0300

Hi,

I reviewed the draft and have a few editorial comments:

4.1.  Separate Source Addresses

    join both SSM sessions separately.

First use of "SSM"; expand.

    Alternatively, one could be more explicit
    and insert an "a=duplication-delay:0" line before the "a=mid:Ch1"
    line.

This is quite vague. Could add an RFC2119 SHOULD/MUST/RECOMMEND here 
(and same in the next section) and tell when/why (not) to do it.

Cheers,
Ari (as individual)

---

From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 06:36:32 +0000

> First use of "SSM"; expand.

sure.

> This is quite vague. Could add an RFC2119 SHOULD/MUST/RECOMMEND here (and same in the next section) and tell when/why (not) to do it.
> 

I think a MUST would be too strong since it is not really a must. I also think making it a SHOULD would require us to explain when it could be ignored (which is really any time since nothing will break if it is ignored). Putting it would be more like informational purposes. I think "MAY" would be appropriate here.

Would that address your concern?

---

From: Ari Keränen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 00:07:55 +0300

> Would that address your concern?

I think the important part is to tell why you should (or may) put it 
there. Is it, e.g., informational for a human reading the SDP or is 
there some corner case where this would help?

If there's no real value adding it there, perhaps it's better to not 
talk about this alternative at all since it will potentially just 
results in unnecessary differences how it ends up implemented.

Cheers,
Ari

---

From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 08:19:37 +0000

On Apr 25, 2013, at 6:07 AM, Ari Keränen <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I think the important part is to tell why you should (or may) put it there. Is it, e.g., informational for a human reading the SDP or is there some corner case where this would help?

It is informational line for humans. Are you ok if we say:

"Alternatively, one MAY explicitly insert an "a=duplication-delay:0" line before ... for informational purposes."

> If there's no real value adding it there, perhaps it's better to not talk about this alternative at all since it will potentially just results in unnecessary differences how it ends up implemented.
> 
Even if we dont mention this, one can use this and the SDP would be valid unless we say one MUST NOT be explicit (I think this would be worse to say)

-acbegen

---

From: Ari Keränen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 18:33:52 +0300

> Even if we dont mention this, one can use this and the SDP would be valid unless we say one MUST NOT be explicit (I think this would be worse to say)

Sure, and I wouldn't say MUST NOT either. IMHO, the comment makes the 
text a bit confusing. However, if you see value of having it there, your 
proposed text work for me.

Cheers,
Ari