Telechat Review of draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-06
review-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-06-genart-telechat-even-2013-07-01-00

Hi Simo,

This will be OK

Roni



From:

 Simo.Veikkolainen at nokia.com [mailto:Simo.Veikkolainen at nokia.com]

Sent:

 04 June, 2013 9:48 AM

To:

 ron.even.tlv at gmail.com; draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps.all at
 tools.ietf.org

Cc:

 ietf at ietf.org; gen-art at ietf.org

Subject:

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



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:ron.even.tlv at gmail.com

]

Sent:

 4. kesäkuuta 2013 2:26

To:

 Veikkolainen Simo (Nokia-CTO/Espoo);

draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps.all at tools.ietf.org

Cc:

ietf at ietf.org

;

gen-art at ietf.org

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:

Simo.Veikkolainen at nokia.com

 [

mailto:Simo.Veikkolainen at nokia.com

]

Sent:

 31 May, 2013 1:14 PM

To:

ron.even.tlv at gmail.com

;

draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps.all at tools.ietf.org

Cc:

ietf at ietf.org

;

gen-art at ietf.org

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:ron.even.tlv at gmail.com

]

Sent:

 29. toukokuuta 2013 21:13

To:

draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps.all at tools.ietf.org

Cc:

ietf at ietf.org

;

gen-art at ietf.org

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: