[MEDIACTRL] SDP review of mediactrl framework
"Jonathan Lennox" <jonathan@vidyo.com> Tue, 08 September 2009 22:36 UTC
Return-Path: <jonathan@vidyo.com>
X-Original-To: mediactrl@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mediactrl@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0E953A69C5 for <mediactrl@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Sep 2009 15:36:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 PpKhs3gVL1-P for <mediactrl@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Sep 2009 15:36:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.myoutlookonline.com (mx1.myoutlookonline.com [64.95.72.238]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBF6D3A69BD for <mediactrl@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Sep 2009 15:36:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from be150.mail.lan ([10.110.20.150]) by mx1.myoutlookonline.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 8 Sep 2009 18:36:35 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 18:36:31 -0400
Message-ID: <6B55710E7F51AD4B93F336052113B85FC69D9B@be150.mail.lan>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: SDP review of mediactrl framework
Thread-Index: Acow1NAYAqYSAgAfQ5iv/I3sSdZazg==
From: Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com>
To: mediactrl@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Sep 2009 22:36:35.0784 (UTC) FILETIME=[D297BC80:01CA30D4]
Subject: [MEDIACTRL] SDP review of mediactrl framework
X-BeenThere: mediactrl@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Media Control WG Discussion List <mediactrl.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mediactrl>, <mailto:mediactrl-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mediactrl>
List-Post: <mailto:mediactrl@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mediactrl-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mediactrl>, <mailto:mediactrl-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 22:36:06 -0000
At the last IETF, I volunteered to review the SDP usage in the mediactrl framework (draft-ietf-mediactrl-sip-control-framework-10), and after some nagging from the relevant chairs (thanks!), I've gotten to it. My first comment is on the use of the values "TCP/CFW", "TCP/TLS/CFW", "SCTP/CFW" and "SCTP/TLS/CFW" for the SDP <proto> field, with a "fmt" field of "*". A more usual use of the proto field would be to use the existing proto fields "TCP", "TCP/TLS", "SCTP", or "SCTP/DTLS", and then (after defining "application/cfw" as a media type) use "cfw" as the <fmt> field. Thus, instead of having m=application 7575 TCP/CFW * you'd have m=application 7575 TCP cfw This has the advantage of leveraging other existing work in SDP, e.g. you would get ICE-TCP "for free" once it's finished. To be sure, there would be some disadvantages of this. Notably, "SCTP" and "SCTP/DTLS" are still only defined in an individual I-D, and there's been only limited attention paid to it in the MMUSIC community. On the other hand, if Mediactrl has the expertise to understand how SCTP should work in a comedia context, it'd probably be better to let this be available to everything that would want to use it, rather than just CFW. Also, Comedia-TLS (RFC 4572) is designed for the symmetric peer-to-peer model (with mutual authentication and certificate fingerprints), not the client-server model (with server certificates signed by well-known CAs, and client authentication optional). It looks like the intention for mediactrl was to do the latter, instead. Would there be significant difficulties with doing the former? Another question I have relates to SDP Offer/Answer. It looks like the intention is that the CFW session last exactly the length of the SIP INVITE dialog usage (note that this terminology [from RFC 5057] should probably be used rather than "SIP dialog"). Does this mean that it is forbidden, despite offer/answer semantics, to add or remove a cfw session in a SIP re-INVITE? If so, this should probably be stated explicitly. One other concern I have is how CFW interacts with SIP forking. As far as I can tell, if an initiator sends an initial SDP offer with setup mode "passive" or "actpass" (which, as the draft mentions, may be necessary for topology reasons), and the INVITE is forked, the initiator could receive multiple answers and thus multiple incoming connections. As far as I can tell, all such answers will have identical cfw-id values, and thus the initial offerer has no way to correlate them. (One solution to this problem would be for answerers to have their own unique cfw-id values, separate from those of offerers; the CFW Dialog-ID header field would then need to be sent in the 200 response to SYNC as well as in SYNC request.) I also note that as far as I can tell, neither SDP nor the CFW SYNC message provides any indication of whether a given endpoint thinks it's a Control Client or a Control Server. It seems this is supposed to be implicit based on the directionality of the initial SIP INVITE request that set up the call, but in some cases this can get confused in SIP (notably given third-party call control), and I'm sure the results could be odd, and hard to diagnose, if two clients or two servers accidentally end up connected. Perhaps this should be a property of the relevant control package, rather than of CFW proper, but it seems like it should be addressed. -- Jonathan Lennox Vidyo, Inc jonathan@vidyo.com
- [MEDIACTRL] SDP review of mediactrl framework Jonathan Lennox
- Re: [MEDIACTRL] SDP review of mediactrl framework Spencer Dawkins