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

[Atle Monrad <[e-mail]>]

Hi

3GPP use this draft in our centralized services which is a feature since 3GPP Rel-8 as mentioned by Andrew.

My point was to avoid adding new references to new drafts on this topic where 3GPP is waiting for completion.

My personal preference on the sentence is clearly stated below, but should in no way be seen as a showstopper.

cheers
/atle

________________________________ 


Atle Monrad
3GPP CT Chairman
Standardization and Regulation,
Group Function Technology and Portfolio Management 
Ericsson


-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: 13. mars 2013 14:34
To: Atle Monrad; Stach, Thomas; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: RE : [MMUSIC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-04.txt

Dear Atle, 

To my knowledge, 3GPP never discussed the use of ccap to convey IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. 

Can you please confirm/infirm?

Thanks.
Cheers,
Med
________________________________________
De : Atle Monrad [[e-mail]] Date d'envoi : mercredi 13 mars 2013 19:31 À : Stach, Thomas; BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN; [e-mail]; [e-mail] Objet : RE: [MMUSIC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-04.txt

All

I'd like to support not adding any new dependencies to the miscellaneous-caps draft. The proposed new text below seems OK, even thugh I personally like the existing text better.

This draft has been on the 3GPP depenceny list for years, and we need the draft completed.

thanks
/atle


________________________________


Atle Monrad
3GPP CT Chairman
Standardization and Regulation,
Group Function Technology and Portfolio Management Ericsson


-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Stach, Thomas
Sent: 13. mars 2013 14:18
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-04.txt

Mohammed,

I think it is not acceptable to mention altc in the example.
If I recollect correctly, the intention of the text is to specify that ICE MUST be preferred over 'ccap' for IPv4/v6 address negotiation.

If we add 'altc' as another example it basically means that the proprietary 'altc' is preferred over 'ccap'.
I don't think that a standards track RFC should give the message that proprietary is preferred.
Based on this issue I think the current text in the draft does not work.
I would explicitly mention the relation of ICE and 'ccap'.
The relation to other mechanism such as 'altc' needs to be treated in hte specification of that mechanism.

Thus I propose to rephrase to:

If an offerer has implemented Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) [RFC5245] and the 'ccap' attribute it MUST use ICE to select between different connection addresses (e.g.  "IP4" and "IP6" or different IP addresses within the same IP address family).


Regards
Thomas

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: [e-mail]
> [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 13. März 2013 13:40
> An: Stach, Thomas; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Betreff: RE : [MMUSIC] I-D Action:
> draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-04.txt
>
> Dear Thomas,
>
> I'm not proposing to change the existing behavior; I'm just asking 
> whether it is acceptable to add an additional example to the one 
> already cited in the text.
> Wouldn't that be acceptable?
>
> You can propose to add another example if you have any in mind.
>
> Cheers,
> Med
>
> ________________________________________
> De : Stach, Thomas [[e-mail]]
> Date d'envoi : mercredi 13 mars 2013 17:57 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed 
> OLNC/OLN; [e-mail]; [e-mail] Objet : AW:
> [MMUSIC] I-D Action:
> draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-04.txt
>
> Mohammed,
>
> I think you have draft-boucadair-mmusic-altc in mind.
> This is an individual submission intended to document some 
> proporietary mechanism.
> I don't think we should make restrictions in a standards track 
> document in support of proprietary mechanisms.
> Otherwise I could also think of additional proprietary stuff that 
> could be mentioned as well.
>
>
> Regards
> Thomas
>
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] Im 
> > Auftrag von [e-mail]
> > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 13. März 2013 11:20
> > An: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Betreff: Re: [MMUSIC] I-D Action:
> > draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-04.txt
> >
> > Hi Simo,
> >
> > The document says:
> >
> > The 'ccap' attribute MUST NOT be used in
> >    situations where an existing mechanism (such as Interactive
> >    Connectivity Establishment (ICE) [RFC5245]) can be used to select
> >    between different connection addresses (e.g.  "IP4" and "IP6" or
> >    different IP addresses within the same IP address family).
> >
> > Would it be possible to change it to the following:
> >
> > NEW:
> >
> > The 'ccap' attribute MUST NOT be used in
> >    situations where a mechanism (such as Interactive
> >    Connectivity Establishment (ICE) [RFC5245] or [ALTC]) is used to 
> > select
> >    between different connection addresses (e.g.  "IP4" and "IP6" or
> >    different IP addresses within the same IP address family).
> >
> >
> > Thanks.
> > Cheers,
> > Med
> >
> >
> > >-----Message d'origine-----
> > >De : [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] De la 
> > >part de [e-mail] Envoyé : mercredi 13 mars 2013
> > >16:09 À : [e-mail] Objet : Re: [MMUSIC] I-D Action:
> > >draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-04.txt
> > >
> > >Hello,
> > >
> > >We just submitted a new version of the miscellaneous-caps draft, 
> > >with text that states that if the connection data capability 
> > >attribute (a=ccap) is used the port number in the resulting SDP 
> > >MUST be the same as in the original "m=" line, except for PSTN type 
> > >bearers (when the port number used is 9).
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >Simo
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On 
> > >Behalf Of ext [e-mail]
> > >Sent: 13. maaliskuuta 2013 15:39
> > >To: [e-mail]
> > >Cc: [e-mail]
> > >Subject: [MMUSIC] I-D Action:
> > >draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-04.txt
> > >
> > >
> > >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
> > >directories.
> > > This draft is a work item of the Multiparty Multimedia Session 
> > >Control Working Group of the IETF.
> > >
> > >     Title           : Miscellaneous Capabilities
> > >Negotiation in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)
> > >     Author(s)       : Miguel A. Garcia-Martin
> > >                          Simo Veikkolainen
> > >                          Robert R. Gilman
> > >     Filename        :
> > >draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-04.txt
> > >     Pages           : 21
> > >     Date            : 2013-03-13
> > >
> > >Abstract:
> > >   SDP has been extended with a capability negotiation mechanism
> > >   framework that allows the endpoints to negotiate
> > transport protocols
> > >   and attributes.  This framework has been extended with a media
> > >   capabilities negotiation mechanism that allows endpoints to 
> > >negotiate
> > >   additional media-related capabilities.  This negotiation
> > is embedded
> > >   into the widely-used SDP offer/answer procedures.
> > >
> > >   This memo extends the SDP capability negotiation
> > framework to allow
> > >   endpoints to negotiate three additional SDP capabilities.  In
> > >   particular, this memo provides a mechanism to negotiate
> bandwidth
> > >   ('b=' line), connection data ('c=' line), and titles
> > ('i=' line for
> > >   each session or media).
> > >
> > >
> > >The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> > >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscella
> > >neous-caps
> > >
> > >There's also a htmlized version available at:
> > >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps
> > >-04
> > >
> > >A diff from the previous version is available at:
> > >http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscella
> > >neous-caps-04
> > >
> > >
> > >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> > >ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >mmusic mailing list
> > >[e-mail]
> > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >mmusic mailing list
> > >[e-mail]
> > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mmusic mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
> >
>
_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic