Re: [MMUSIC] RE : I-D Action: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-04.txt

Andrew Allen <aallen@blackberry.com> Thu, 14 March 2013 19:51 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=27852b12f4=aallen@blackberry.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 A04D011E8103 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:51:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.148
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.148 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.450, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_42=0.6, MANGLED_LOAN=2.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2Fjd3JLvHvnG for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:51:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mhs060cnc.rim.net (mhs060cnc.rim.net [208.65.73.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F6B911E8256 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:51:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 0a41282f-b7fa06d000002431-7e-51422a22cb6f
Received: from XCT102ADS.rim.net (xct102ads.rim.net [10.67.111.43]) by mhs060cnc.rim.net (SBG) with SMTP id 8B.50.09265.22A22415; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:50:58 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from XMB104ADS.rim.net ([fe80::2494:a63d:e3:723b]) by XCT102ADS.rim.net ([fe80::4806:2e1d:2b7c:cfdf%22]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:50:57 -0500
From: Andrew Allen <aallen@blackberry.com>
To: "fandreas@cisco.com" <fandreas@cisco.com>, "thomas.stach@siemens-enterprise.com" <thomas.stach@siemens-enterprise.com>
Thread-Topic: AW: [MMUSIC] RE : I-D Action: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-04.txt
Thread-Index: AQHOILR4FRB+udTQGku/nF8/mU+ospillH4AgAAMq4CAAADiAIAABM+AgAAiZgCAAAZvAP//rVJAgAAA0XCAAG2UgP//raw8
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 19:50:56 +0000
Message-ID: <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD2338D2B01C@XMB104ADS.rim.net>
In-Reply-To: <514228DF.8060303@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-CA, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.67.110.253]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD2338D2B01CXMB104ADSrimnet_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrLKsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsXC5Zyvrauk5RRosPOctMX7C7oW+xefZ7aY uvwxi8Wu7TUOLB5Tfm9k9Viy5CeTx43b75k92p7dYQ9giWpgtElKLCkLzkzP07ezSczLyy9J LElVSEktTrZV8klNT8xRCCjKLEtMrlRwySxOzknMzE0tUlLITLFVMlFSKMhJTE7NTc0rsVVK LChIzUtRsuNSwAA2QGWZeQqpecn5KZl56bZKnsH+uhYWppa6hkp2ugmdPBnvZl9kK7j2nKni 7JvJzA2MS+4xdTFyckgImEicWv2QHcIWk7hwbz1bFyMXh5DASkaJv8eWsEI4mxklbr/ZxghS xSagJbH/8HSwbhGBGomLV9+C2cwCIRKHnr8F6ubgEBaIkZj9vQSiJFZi0oweFgg7T+L61rvM IDaLgKrE9q/XwRbzCnhINLz4ywZicwpoSjRufMEKYjMKyErsPnsdary4xK0n86GOFpBYsuc8 M4QtKvHy8T9WCFtR4u/e76wQ9fkSbcf+MkLMF5Q4OfMJywRGkVlIRs1CUjYLSdksoA+Ygc5Y v0sfokRRYkr3Q3YIW0Oidc5cdmTxBYzsqxgFczOKDcwMkvOS9Yoyc/XyUks2MYKSjKOG/g7G t+8tDjEKcDAq8fDGqTgFCrEmlhVX5h5ilOBgVhLh3fXXMVCINyWxsiq1KD++qDQntfgQYxAw gCYyS3En5wMTYF5JvLGBAZEcJXHeMk2gJQLpwESWnZpakFoEM5SJgxNkKZeUSDEwHaUWJZaW ZMSDkmZ8MTBtSjUwekftqDHyncy8YMmxyYXnBA/v6L+2VG+r7bsaqZeNH/szlsg8F074sUwk Q3KOAcuNzUy9UvXH75b1nNfMk9/9J3CyTaGN+Ox7IT7KD1wmRu7k+npdW6yd+f966yUvDL3f J20LE1k9lduhUeLlK6unStYNng++s56N/rLeiOHtkTttU0Uf9s3MUmIpzkg01GIuKk4EAK8s 2KeAAwAA
Cc: "jonathan@vidyo.com" <jonathan@vidyo.com>, "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] RE : I-D Action: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-04.txt
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 19:51:06 -0000

I am not sure if anything is recorded in any minutes but we had an offline discussion to remove the roadblock on this with Jonathan to address his concern that this was a potential alternative to ICE and addressed this with the current text. This text and the reason behind it I think was pointed out on the list during Quebec or shortly after.


From: Flemming Andreasen [mailto:fandreas@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 02:45 PM Central Standard Time
To: Stach, Thomas <thomas.stach@siemens-enterprise.com>
Cc: Andrew Allen; jonathan@vidyo.com <jonathan@vidyo.com>; mmusic@ietf.org <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: AW: [MMUSIC] RE : I-D Action: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-04.txt

As to ccap not being an alternative to ICE we are all in agreement on that - the lack of port negotiation alone makes that clear (it simply doesn't work without that).

As to ccap being explicitly forbidden to express IP4 and/or IP6 addresses as alternatives, can somebody please point me to either meeting minutes or mailing list discussion to that effect ? The only thing I have found is the port discussion we had in Taipei, where we agreed not to add a port capability. From http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/minutes/mmusic.htm:
<quote>
Miscellaneous Capabilities Negotiation in SDP (Simo Veikkolainen, 10)
=====================================================================
draft-garcia-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-00.txt<http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-garcia-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-00.txt>

Simo presented his slides<http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/mmusic-8.pptx>.

Simo explained the need to be able to indicate alternative port numbers, but PSTN media, port number doesn't make sense. The CS draft says use port number 9 (the discard port). We have to put something there because required by SDP syntax. If an RTP stream is offered, then a regular port number should be written instead. The problem arises when both CS and RTP streams are offered at the same time, one as an alternative of the other. Then, the port number makes sense for RTP but not for CS, but still, there is a single place to write the port number in the SDP, so, has to be shared by both alternative media streams.

Possible solutions:

1. Circuit-switched media uses the same port as RTP media even though the port is not really used
2. Extend capneg with a port number capability attribute, restricting its use to cases where ICE cannot be used.
3.  Select anything as a port number and say "do not care on reception".

Jonathan Lennox suggested saying that port numbers not equal 0 have to be ignored.

Hadriel Kaplan asked if middle boxes not supporting this stuff can be broken. The discussion is moved offline.

There are questions on how could be possible to indicate preference for one media stream above the alternative.

Miguel Garcia suggested using port 9 if it works. If not take anything not equal 0. Receiver has to ignore.

In general, there was pushback on the port negotiation approach. The authors should explore a solution along the third option: write the RTP port number in the "m=" line. If CS alternative is chosen, discard the port number on reception.
</quote>

Apart from that, the only thing I'm aware of is the 4 WG versions of this draft which have all said the same about IP4/IP6 and ICE, and again, that text was both WGLC'ed and reviewed by 2 volunteers without any concerns. Where does the alternate understanding come from ?

Thanks

-- Flemming



On 3/14/13 2:16 PM, Stach, Thomas wrote:
This is also my understanding
... although my initially proposed text does not reflect this correctly.

Regards
Thomas


________________________________
Von: mmusic-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org> [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Andrew Allen
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. März 2013 14:10
An: jonathan@vidyo.com<mailto:jonathan@vidyo.com>; fandreas@cisco.com<mailto:fandreas@cisco.com>
Cc: mmusic@ietf.org<mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
Betreff: Re: [MMUSIC] RE : I-D Action: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-04.txt


My understanding also was that we agreed that CCAP was not an alternative to ICE.


From: Jonathan Lennox [mailto:jonathan@vidyo.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 01:06 PM Central Standard Time
To: Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com><mailto:fandreas@cisco.com>
Cc: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com><mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>; Andrew Allen; mmusic@ietf.org<mailto:mmusic@ietf.org> <mmusic@ietf.org><mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] RE : I-D Action: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-04.txt


On Mar 14, 2013, at 1:43 PM, Flemming Andreasen wrote:

On 3/14/13 11:40 AM, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:
Re-,

What is important is the quality of produced documents. The content of the document is not frozen and unless I'm mistaken there is not IETF LC.

Correct.
What I understand from the text in the draft is: ccap is allowed to signal an IPv4@ and IPv6@ if ICE is not supported.

ccap is not prohibited from doing so in the absence of ICE, however as explained in the document
1) When the IETF Standard Track mechanism ICE is available, ccap MUST NOT signal an IPv4/IPV6 address alternative.
2) The draft does (intentionally) not provide a full solution for negotiating alternative IP-addresses since we have a Standards Track mechanism for doing so (ICE).

Hi, Fleming --

My understanding of the WG consensus -- and my interpretation of the text in the draft -- was stronger than this: ccap MUST NOT be used for the kinds of alternatives ICE can express, whether or not ICE is actually being used in a particular offer/answer.

If we're getting divergent interpretations of this document, we probably do need to update its text.

--
Jonathan Lennox
jonathan@vidyo.com<mailto:jonathan@vidyo.com>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.