Re: [bfcpbis] [MMUSIC] draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes and draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes: MUX category misalignment

["Suhas Nandakumar (snandaku)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Christer

Suggested text works for me.

Thanks
Suhas

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
________________________________
From: Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2020 12:50:14 AM
To: Suhas Nandakumar (snandaku) <[e-mail]>; Charles Eckel (eckelcu) <[e-mail]>; Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg=[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; Suhas Nandakumar <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes and draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes: MUX category misalignment

Hi,

>> Thanks for bringing the concern here.
>> Would it be an option to change section 5.27 to mark all the attributes as TBD instead
>
> If that’s what people want to do, I won’t argue against it.
>
>> That way regardless of rfc4583 or rfc4583bis we align on there is no spec to describe the behavior under multiplexing
>
> If we keep the text, should we change the reference to 4583bis? That will be used in the IANA registry.
>
> (Suhas ) Prefer keeping it rfc4583 to benefit the implementations of that draft. But ok to be convinced other way if you really feel strong about it

If you want to keep the reference to RFC4583, what about adding the following note:

"NOTE: Note that RFC4583 has been obsoleted by ref-to-4583bis. ref-to-4583bis re-defines the SDP attributes listed, including the mux category values, in this section. However, mux category values are not changed."

Regards,

Christer



From: Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2020 11:20:44 PM
To: Charles Eckel (eckelcu) <[e-mail]>; Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg=[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; Suhas Nandakumar (snandaku) <[e-mail]>; Suhas Nandakumar <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes and draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes: MUX category misalignment

Hi Charles,

>> 1. No changes to of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis. The MUX category of all attributes are set to “TBD”.
> Ok.
>
>> 2. In draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes, we remove Section 5.27, and the definition of the BFCP MUX categories.
>
> Section 5.27 is for RFC 4583. I think it is helpful to leave it to provide guidance for RFC 4583, but in doing so, change the
> category to TBD to align with what will be published in rfc4583bis/RFC 8856.

We don't do that for other specifications that define SDP attributes and mux categories.

The purpose of draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes was to only define mux categories for existing attributes (for which a mux category hadn't been defined).

Regards,

Christer







Cheers,
Charles

3. Based on the change above, the IANA registry will be updated accordingly.

Does anyone object to this?

Suhas, it would be really nice to get your opinion on this.

In general, when it comes to cluster 238, we really need to be careful that similar conflicts don’t occur elsewhere.

Regards,

Christer


From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg=[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, 5 May 2020 at 23.41
To: Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, Suhas Nandakumar <[e-mail]>, Suhas Nandakumar <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes and draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes: MUX category misalignment

During the AUTH48 review of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-27, that is.

From: mmusic <[e-mail]> on behalf of Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg=[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, 5 May 2020 at 23.25
To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, Suhas Nandakumar <[e-mail]>, Suhas Nandakumar <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [MMUSIC] draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes and draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes: MUX category misalignment

Hi,

During the AUTH48 review of draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes -27 is was realized that draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-27 defines the mux category “TBD” to all BFCP SDP attributes.

However, with the exception of the ‘floorctrl’ attribute, draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes defines the mux category “NORMAL” to the BFCP SDP attributes.

Now, both documents explicitly point out that multiplexing of BFCP streams haven’t been defined, which to me sounds like “TBD” would be more appropriate.

But, we need to pick one.

Comments?

Suhas?

Regards,

Christer