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

[Tom Kristensen <[e-mail]>]

This looks good and is also aligned with the initial reason for choosing
"TBD" in the first place. Good to see the "dance" ends up the same!

-- Tom

On Thu, 7 May 2020 at 10:26, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Below is the e-mail I sent to the RFC editor:
>
>
>
> ---
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> We have now discussed how to solve the mux category conflict between
> draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis and draft-ietf-mmusic-mux-attribute, and this
> is the proposed way forward:
>
>
>
> draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis:
>
>
>
> - No changes. The mux category for all SDP attributes remain "TBD"
>
> - The IANA SDP parameter registry wlll reference
> draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis for the SDP attributes.
>
>
>
> draft-ietf-mmusic-mux-attribute:
>
>
>
> - We align the mux category values with draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis. The
> mux category for all SDP attributes are changed to "TBD".
>
> - We maintain the reference to RFC4583.
>
> - We add [draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis] as an Informative reference.
>
> - We add the following note to Section 5.27, below the table:
>
>
>
> "NOTE: [RFC4583] has been obsoleted by [draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis],
> that re-defines the SDP attributes listed in this Section, including the
>
> mux category values. However, [draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis] does not
> change the mux category values of the attributes."
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Christer
>
>
>
> ---
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg=[e-mail]
> >
> *Date: *Thursday, 7 May 2020 at 10.54
> *To: *Suhas Nandakumar <[e-mail]>, Charles Eckel <
> [e-mail]>, 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,
>
>
>
> Ok. I will suggest that to the RFC editor. I will CC you.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Christer
>
>
>
> *From: *Suhas Nandakumar <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Thursday, 7 May 2020 at 10.52
> *To: *Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>, Charles Eckel <
> [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 Christer
>
>
>
> Suggested text works for me.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Suhas
>
>
>
> Get Outlook for iOS
> <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=898c3622-d72c8c4c-898c76b9-869a14f4b08c-8fcce93a8f54b6be&q=1&e=ecd6cd36-8b55-45b5-8004-abccc5fc4683&u=https%3A%2F%2Faka.ms%2Fo0ukef>
> ------------------------------
>
> *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
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>


-- 
# http://folk.uio.no/tomkri/ | [phone] (m)
## http://facebook.com/tomkri/ | xmpp:[e-mail]
### "Å leve er å ta stilling. Jeg hater likegyldige mennesker.", A. Gramsci