Media Server Control Markup Language (MSCML) and Protocol
draft-vandyke-mscml-09

IANA Evaluation Comment:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following assignments
in the "Application Media-Types" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/

mediaservercontrol+xml [RFC-vandyke-mscml]

We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this document.

[Note]: 'Proposing we use response #1 (the no conflict response) and note #2 (the this protocol was not reviewed by IETF and YMMV note). More details in id tracker comments.' added by Amy Vezza

[Note]: 'Proposing we use response #1 (the no conflict response) and note #2 (the this protocol was not reviewed by IETF and YMMV note). More details in id tracker comments. ' added by Cullen Jennings

I am proposing we use response #1

  1. The IESG has not found any conflict between this document and IETF
      work.

We could also consider response #2
  2. The IESG thinks that this work is related to IETF work done in
      the XCON WG, but this does not prevent publishing.

And note #2

      This RFC is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard.
      The IETF disclaims any knowledge of the fitness of this RFC for
      any purpose and in particular notes that the decision to publish
      is not based on IETF review for such things as security,
      congestion control, or inappropriate interaction with deployed
      protocols.  The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at
      its discretion.  Readers of this document should exercise caution
      in evaluating its value for implementation and deployment.  See
      RFC 3932 for more information.

[Note]: 'Proposing we use response #1 (the no conflict response) and note #2 (the this protocol was not reviewed by IETF and YMMV note). More details in id tracker comments. ' added by Cullen Jennings

The RFC Editor is reviewing this document.  It was revived when it expired and
will be held via the RFC Editor "hold".  The SIPPING WG gave a "no objection" to
this so the IESG has a preliminary result on endrun analysis, and the other
WG to review it is the one the author chairs, SPEECHSC.

Requested to the RFC Editor with cc's - Dean Willis took a look and said "no objection" - Jon should have SPEECHSC review for end run IMO, but also looks ok to me.  Needs media-type review.