Re: [MMUSIC] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-20
Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Tue, 11 December 2018 17:25 UTC
Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CC57130EBC for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 09:25:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.68
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.68 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.com
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 xY7TWQBLgZpH for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 09:25:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6148130EB4 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 09:25:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.45] (cpe-70-122-203-106.tx.res.rr.com [70.122.203.106]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id wBBHPHbb033693 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 11 Dec 2018 11:25:19 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1544549120; bh=e7YWqM0QjNUuLzr+/mQIWT7HVo1yepJbh7lYymCk7WU=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=ZRhDR4H0HPlb6l6KV8SPW0yAXwzz4LJLT2Kro+qsWEBJ/DcJxkGG5eKYqTJieXuKd eibA6LRGL+biT0pOCHQujnHytrKl4yaOprXebVSyxBuPDaXL4/VmtwZFUOVUZdgWbw 7UIAMLIDXqXoh1qH3jAGdSDCeYH5ClY+hV/yJchg=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-122-203-106.tx.res.rr.com [70.122.203.106] claimed to be [10.0.1.45]
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Message-Id: <35194BC6-3AC4-4D81-9ABF-F04437F1F754@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_35D6354C-7B11-410C-9A92-20C88A2EF2E4"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.1 \(3445.101.1\))
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 11:25:16 -0600
In-Reply-To: <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD18C90C8C@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Cc: Bo Burman <bo.burman@ericsson.com>, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>, "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
To: "Roni Even (A)" <roni.even@huawei.com>
References: <E028869C-2FE4-44D1-985B-7B3FD58D352A@nostrum.com> <C454212D-B8FF-4E21-B6ED-67EB6BB96A88@nostrum.com> <1eb405ee-e9ab-d428-a472-7cad77ecfacc@alum.mit.edu> <1830A336-9C4A-4ACD-8988-681AE7F6F095@nostrum.com> <HE1PR07MB3259F2F781B584F67059E33E8DAA0@HE1PR07MB3259.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD18C90C8C@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.101.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/-2bv0l3tVk2SUtne3ocuRWq5q08>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-20
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mmusic/>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 17:25:35 -0000
As a reminder, my concern was that the draft contains language that assumes a specification will exist. For example, §6 says: "The detailed offer/answer procedures for the dcsa attribute are dependent on the associated sub-protocol. A sub-protocol specification MUST define the offer/answer procedures for the dsca attribute (if applicable) associated with the sub-protocol." If it is possible to register a data-channel sub-protocol without a spec, then the text that assumes a spec will exist needs to be revised. I understand the desire to share the websocket subprotocol registry, but the need for documented offer/answer procedures suggests that FCFS is not the right policy for data-channel subprotocols. For the record, I would be okay with it if the wg decides to stick with FCFS, but the text would need to change in a few places to remove the assumptions that a spec would exist. We would, of course, have to accept the idea of a data-channel subprotocol with no documented offer/answer considerations. That might be okay if we allow private-use protocols and just want to avoid collisions. Thanks! Ben. > On Dec 11, 2018, at 4:15 AM, Roni Even (A) <roni.even@huawei.com> wrote: > > Hi Bo, > I am not sure I understand the issue. According to section 9.1 > > A subprotocol may simultaneously be defined for data channel > transport and for Websocket transport. In such a case the > "Subprotocol Definition" and "Reference" cells in the subprotocol's > row of the IANA "WebSocket Subprotocol Name Registry" table should > contain two entries. One entry in each of these cells should refer > to the Websocket related subprotocol specification, and the other > entry should refer to the data channel related subprotocol > specification. > > This applies to the msrp case if it was registered also for data channel. > > I am not sure what we will have with a second registry is it only for data channel usage and we will not register it also in the web socket registry? > > > > Roni > > -----Original Message----- > From: mmusic [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bo Burman > Sent: Friday, December 07, 2018 10:55 AM > To: Ben Campbell; Paul Kyzivat > Cc: mmusic@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-20 > > When looking at the now expired draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel, I think the content clearly hints that at least for MSRP, a tag without further specification would simply not achieve interoperable implementations. I believe the same would be valid for many other subprotocols. Therefore, I share Ben's concern that FCFS doesn't seem generally sufficient. > > /Bo (as individual) > > -----Original Message----- > From: mmusic <mmusic-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Ben Campbell > Sent: den 27 november 2018 23:53 > To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> > Cc: mmusic@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-20 > > > >> On Nov 27, 2018, at 1:40 PM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> wrote: >> >> On 11/26/18 5:32 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: >> >>>> §9.1: What is the rational for sharing the websocket subprotocol registry rather than creating a new one for data channels? The websocket subprotocol name registry has a policy of “First Come First Served”. This draft seems to state requirements for subprotocol specifications, but FCFS does not require specifications. >> >> IIRC this choice was made by the rtcweb wg. I don't recall how it was made. >> >> It is my impression there is an expectation that many websocket protocols could also be used over data channels in order to get multiplexing of the socket. > > I can accept that the reason might be “because that was what the WG wanted”, but isn’t there still a mismatch with the registration policy? This draft seems to expect subprotocol specifications -- is FCFS acceptable? > >> >> Thanks, >> Paul >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mmusic mailing list >> mmusic@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic > > _______________________________________________ > mmusic mailing list > mmusic@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
- [MMUSIC] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-data-… Ben Campbell
- Re: [MMUSIC] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-d… Bo Burman
- Re: [MMUSIC] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-d… Ben Campbell
- Re: [MMUSIC] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-d… Bo Burman
- Re: [MMUSIC] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-d… Ben Campbell
- Re: [MMUSIC] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-d… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-d… Ben Campbell
- Re: [MMUSIC] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-d… Bo Burman
- Re: [MMUSIC] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-d… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-d… Roni Even (A)
- Re: [MMUSIC] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-d… Ben Campbell
- Re: [MMUSIC] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-d… Bo Burman
- Re: [MMUSIC] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-d… Roni Even (A)
- Re: [MMUSIC] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-d… Bo Burman
- Re: [MMUSIC] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-d… Ben Campbell
- Re: [MMUSIC] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-d… Bo Burman
- Re: [MMUSIC] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-d… Roni Even (A)
- Re: [MMUSIC] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-d… Ben Campbell
- Re: [MMUSIC] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-d… Roni Even (A)
- Re: [MMUSIC] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-d… Ben Campbell