Subject: Re: [Slim] [IANA #949701] expert review for draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language (sdp-parameters)

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 15:04:14 -0700

At 2:55 PM -0700 4/24/17, Bernard Aboba wrote:

>  Randall Gellens said:
>
>  "The WG explicitly decided to take routing out of scope to advance 
> the simple proposal in the draft."
>
>  [BA] While it is correct that the WG decided to leave routing out 
> of scope for this document, the text does say anything about this, 
> so that even an expert reader could be confused. Could we add some 
> clarifying text?

I'll add the following paragraph to the Introduction:

    To reduce the complexity of the solution, this draft focuses on
    negotiating language per media; routing is out of scope.

>
>  Adam Roach said:
>
>  "I'll note that much of this can be fixed if the syntax is collapsed"
>
>  [BA] I didn't see a reply to Adam's suggestion, which aside from 
> the syntax issues would address concerns about SDP size.

I'm happy to make this change, although since it is technical rather 
than editorial and the document went through IETF last call, I think 
we need to make sure no one in the WG objects to the change.  I sent 
a separate email with the proposed updated ABNF for the syntax (there 
will of course be edits to the examples as well).

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
I can't even program a VCR, and I'm on-line!!!  --AOL user (in AOL ad)

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 15:09:10 -0700

At 3:13 PM -0700 4/24/17, Bernard Aboba wrote:

>  Gunnar said:
>
>  "I notice that the comments and solution proposal on the syntax 
> concerns from the IANA review has a lot in common with Issue 34.
> 
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/slim/ticket/34>https://trac.ietf.org/trac/slim/ticket/34
>
>  Both propose a one-line format for all languages in one media 
> and direction, and both are puzzled by the diffuse placement rules 
> for the asterisk parameter.
>  A solution could be searched on these together."
>
>  [BA] Yes, there does appear to be commonality in these 3 
> independent reviews - which is what lead to the suggestion that the 
> draft go back to the WG.

I don't think the draft needs to re-run WG LC or IETF LC; I think can 
consider the edit to be a LC comment revision and therefore 
explicitly asking the group if anyone objects to the change is 
sufficient.

>  Randall -- is there some obvious reason why a syntax collapse 
> cannot be considered?

I've done the edits in my version of -09 and sent an explicit message 
to the group asking if anyone objects.

-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
Honk if you hate bumper stickers that say "Honk if ..."