Last call redux: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-26

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Wed, 23 March 2016 20:43 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA3EA12D79C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 13:43:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.721
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.721 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cooperw.in header.b=ZLLhsn1X; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=N/GFEEk3
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YB4HS2jI8zhE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 13:43:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4249312D100 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 13:43:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A99DF209BE for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 16:43:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 23 Mar 2016 16:43:49 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:message-id :mime-version:subject:to:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=JOs Zh/nO0AinSuvmsSfVFGwLjy0=; b=ZLLhsn1XmqOrqUe8JcdQG2js+n4kVlbVAXy GxSw1Pq1vzq9c+IqaWW5e8JBzMeKNwbmHf8A5AHO3uRmWQmj2kJIYCokJN7ye6ss anwfIBYiiTQBYqtuSUjoKlNnDC+w+UwX447mDbEFZlO5umHndGYIv5hWrFJKR2hF ip5Xphr0=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:to:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=JOsZh/nO0AinSuvmsSfVFGwLjy0=; b=N/GFE Ek3N/Q1KKWTCPJd8WoUvR/iZc0mZrennKvWZ4TVWluS+WW48XRLw/hA/CSGXKG/H A3tY4UygsVBIKw/cS4GykhYDNYdfckmg4csXOqy1fVH8cAu4tMP82J1051jl00tU 4D/c5UP4c0mCka6fAEDbfD9m/1sXt+dhP9eC2k=
X-Sasl-enc: jal8dsLWhkF4TcOpxHJCQeya46xwmn7MixeCkphfagfB 1458765829
Received: from dhcp-171-68-122-59.cisco.com (dhcp-171-68-122-59.cisco.com [171.68.122.59]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 2DE616801C9; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 16:43:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Last call redux: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-26
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 13:44:08 -0700
Message-Id: <4F3B615A-A77A-434E-B3A9-DDABE8994373@cooperw.in>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/fSm7UjRYKu9JpyLk8MZlOuaL8ig>
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 20:43:52 -0000

draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-25 was approved for publication in July 2015 and is in the RFC Editor's queue. Subsequently, the RTCWEB WG identified a change that needed to be made in Section 4.5 related to multiplexing RTP and RTCP. The change is reflected in draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-26 and copied below.

The IESG will not revisit its decision to approve this document for publication unless it receives feedback from the community indicating a need to do so. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing list by 2016-04-13. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead.

The change is:

OLD:

 If SDP is used for signalling, this
 negotiation MUST use the attributes defined in [RFC5761].  For
 backwards compatibility, implementations are also REQUIRED to support
 RTP and RTCP sent on separate transport-layer flows.

NEW:

 If SDP is used for signalling, this
 negotiation MUST use the mechanism defined in [RFC5761].
 Implementations can also support sending RTP and RTCP on separate
 transport-layer flows, but this is OPTIONAL to implement.  If an
 implementation does not support RTP and RTCP sent on separate
 transport-layer flows, it MUST indicate that using the mechanism
 defined in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-mux-exclusive].
 
The document is available at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage/