Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-22

Christer Holmberg <> Sun, 05 February 2017 14:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50C4A129434; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 06:14:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7O-FEONiP2gA; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 06:14:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F0DB129422; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 06:14:09 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-b99fe70000007389-7f-5897332e64e5
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id E0.C8.29577.E2337985; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 15:14:08 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 15:14:06 +0100
From: Christer Holmberg <>
To: Brian Carpenter <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: Review of draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-22
Thread-Index: AQHSf18vg7KvnMe4fUWDAsU2eyafs6Faa6TQ
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2017 14:14:05 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmphkeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZGbFdVNfAeHqEwdvdvBZtF/cxWWzq38Ri cfXVZxaLqcsfsziweOycdZfdY8mSn0wBTFFcNimpOZllqUX6dglcGb3nnrEVnJCu2Nie1cD4 RqqLkZNDQsBE4vv2TqYuRi4OIYF1jBI3761mhHAWMUr0PFkJ5HBwsAlYSHT/0wZpEBGIkujZ upYZpIZZoIFR4sDJJkaQhDDQpF2HWlggikwlbi5bzgRhG0lc3d3LDmKzCKhI3Hi2lA3E5hXw lZjz/CZYvRCQferPVmYQm1PAT2LB+oVgcUYBMYnvp9aAzWEWEJe49WQ+E8TVAhJL9pxnhrBF JV4+/scKYStJLLr9mQnkZmYBTYn1u/QhWhUlpnQ/ZIdYKyhxcuYTlgmMorOQTJ2F0DELSccs JB0LGFlWMYoWpxYn5aYbGemlFmUmFxfn5+nlpZZsYgTGzcEtvw12ML587niIUYCDUYmH90PM tAgh1sSy4srcQ4wSHMxKIrw7daZHCPGmJFZWpRblxxeV5qQWH2KU5mBREuc1W3k/XEggPbEk NTs1tSC1CCbLxMEp1cBYw5m4e/+h1GPyHJevmt9x2+c+20juWVNIyf3i9Y67zvfc3Ml2If+Y +7XXFYx/UmylH7/hmfNYq/6IN3vFR8fyecuUP7T6h76qEvjEmbwv5suSJ9HXMvdPf9KnffiT bH5743+JW6eEM/t9236F18odkX6azF2r8uCZfOW910wd/7WPf/1b6sirxFKckWioxVxUnAgA hTJSSpcCAAA=
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-22
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2017 14:14:12 -0000

Hi Brian,

Thanks for your review! Please see inline.



>Two points I noted in the writeup:
>"There are existing implementations of earlier versions of the document..."
>Excellent, but I wonder why we don't see Implementation Status sections under RFC 6982 in more Last Call drafts.

Perhaps a topic for an IETF chairs lunch presentation?

I have to admit that I did not know about 6982 (now obsoleted by 7942). My suggestion would to not collect that information for this draft at this point of time, as it could take some time.

>"IPv6 address examples are not necessary since IP version differences are immaterial to the purpose of the specification."
>It's just as easy to give an IPv6 example though, and more future proof.

I can modify the address in the example, from IPv4 to v6.

Minor issue: (almost a nit)

1.  Introduction
>>   NOTE: Due to the characteristics of TCP, usage of 'TCP/DTLS/SCTP'
>>   will always force ordered and reliable delivery of the SCTP
>>   packets, which limits the usage of the SCTP options.  Therefore, it is
>>   RECOMMENDED that TCP is only used in situations where UDP traffic
>>   is blocked.
> Why would one choose 'TCP/DTLS/SCTP' rather than just 'TCP/TLS'? I don't object to it being specified, but since you 
> don't support multihoming or multiple associations, what is the use case, in a few words?

SCTP supports multiple SCTP streams over a single association, and you can still use that with 'TCP/DTLS/SCTP'. E.g, the WebRTC Data Channel protocol uses two streams to realize a data channel.

I could modify the first sentence as following:

        "NOTE: Due to the characteristics of TCP, while multiple SCTP streams
         can still be used, usage of 'TCP/DTLS/SCTP' will always force...."


>> 4.4.2.  SDP Media Description values
>>      m= line parameter        parameter value(s)
>>      <media>:                 "application"
>>      <proto>:                 "UDP/DTLS/SCTP" or "TCP/DTLS/SCTP"
>>      <port>:                  UDP port number (for "UDP/DTLS/SCTP")
>>                                     TCP port number (for ""UDP/DTLS/SCTP")
> I think the last line should be: TCP port number (for "TCP/DTLS/SCTP")

Correct. Will be fixed.

>There is some inconsistency in the use of quotation marks: "UDP/DTLS/SCTP" or 'UDP/DTLS/SCTP'

I'll fix that. I will use single quotes.