IETF Logo Mail Archive

[AVT] Remaining issues in the Token draft

"Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com> Fri, 03 December 2010 03:28 UTC

Return-Path: <abegen@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: avt@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E92E428C16F for <avt@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 19:28:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.073
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.073 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.074, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QG6OfvXCCJo1 for <avt@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 19:28:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F57D28C121 for <avt@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 19:28:32 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-5.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmYFAE3z90yrR7H+/2dsb2JhbACVG44Vcacomx+FRwSEXokh
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,291,1288569600"; d="scan'208";a="296683098"
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com ([171.71.177.254]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Dec 2010 03:29:48 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oB33Tih1024783 for <avt@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 03:29:49 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.169]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 2 Dec 2010 19:29:25 -0800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 19:29:23 -0800
Message-ID: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540DD50C92@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Remaining issues in the Token draft
Thread-Index: AcuSNuNqHVae5lkdRRiaSuDCLMr3ug==
From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com>
To: avt@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Dec 2010 03:29:25.0328 (UTC) FILETIME=[48BEE500:01CB929A]
Subject: [AVT] Remaining issues in the Token draft
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/avt>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 03:28:33 -0000

Here are the open issues in the Token draft. For the latest (-05 version), refer to:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avt-ports-for-ucast-mcast-rtp/ 

1- O/A model for the 'portmapping-req' attribute. Magnus thinks we should define this but I am still not clear how to do this or why we are doing it. I will ask Magnus for help (or simply for the text).

2- Is there a need to allow address field in the 'portmapping-req' attribute? Magnus thinks "yes". Is there any strong opinion here? Right now, the address is implied from the c line in the unicast session or the a=rtcp line in the multicast session.

If we missed other issues, please speak up.

-acbegen

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email