IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [AVT] Remaining issues in the Token draft

"Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com> Fri, 10 December 2010 12:50 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 990E428C0DB for <avt@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 04:50:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.403
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.403 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.196, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 8lpN4QbQWx74 for <avt@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 04:50:22 -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 8951428C0D0 for <avt@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 04:50:22 -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: AvsEAD6xAU2rR7Hu/2dsb2JhbACkAXijeZsphUoEhGSJLw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,323,1288569600"; d="scan'208";a="300406746"
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com ([171.71.177.238]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Dec 2010 12:51:52 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oBACpqq6026746; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 12:51:52 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); Fri, 10 Dec 2010 04:51:52 -0800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 04:51:45 -0800
Message-ID: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540DE2DAFE@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D01F2D2.4000800@ericsson.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [AVT] Remaining issues in the Token draft
Thread-Index: AcuYTQEa58wAtlb4TtSfGgox0TYkWQAGjleQ
References: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540DD50C92@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com><4CF8E278.5030901@ericsson.com> <4D00DC14.6030601@ericsson.com> <EC3FD58E75D43A4F8807FDE074917546169CB761@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540DE2D81E@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> <4D01F2D2.4000800@ericsson.com>
From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Dec 2010 12:51:52.0502 (UTC) FILETIME=[04853D60:01CB9869]
Cc: avt@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [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, 10 Dec 2010 12:50:23 -0000

> >    The formal description of the 'portmapping-req' attribute is defined
> >    by the following ABNF [RFC5234] syntax:
> >
> >    portmapping-req-attribute = "a=portmapping-req:" [port [nettype space
> >                                 addrtype space connection-address]] CRLF
> >
> 
> Actually the above ABNF is broken, it is missing a SPACE separator in
> one places. An attempt to fix this is:
> 
> portmapping-req-attribute = "a=portmapping-req:" [port [SP nettype SP
>                                addrtype SP connection-address]] CRLF
> 
> SP = space is defined in RFC 5234

Right, thanks for catching.
 
...
> >    An offerer that desires the answerer to use Tokens in any RTCP
> >    message sent to the offerer, i.e., received by the offerer, the
> 
>  isn't there a comma to much after i.e.?

AFAIK, it is required. RFC editor also uses it if I am not mistaken.
http://hubpages.com/hub/Grammar_Mishaps__ie_ve_eg

Cheers,
-acbegen

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email