Re: [MMUSIC] IANA registration of SDP attributes
Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Tue, 22 March 2016 15:28 UTC
Return-Path: <prvs=98892e5cb3=pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
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 E1E8912D1CA for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 08:28:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.202
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
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 Qpr_v_3AHkOZ for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 08:28:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alum-mailsec-scanner-3.mit.edu (alum-mailsec-scanner-3.mit.edu [18.7.68.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6834712D11A for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 08:19:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 1207440e-befff70000000398-f1-56f16268371b
Received: from outgoing-alum.mit.edu (OUTGOING-ALUM.MIT.EDU [18.7.68.33]) by (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id ED.F2.00920.86261F65; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 11:19:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local (c-73-218-51-154.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [73.218.51.154]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as pkyzivat@ALUM.MIT.EDU) by outgoing-alum.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id u2MFJ3rx028315 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 11:19:04 -0400
To: mmusic@ietf.org
References: <56E1C193.1050308@alum.mit.edu> <56E2EF31.2020808@alcatel-lucent.com> <56E2F67D.7060005@alum.mit.edu> <56EE0AA1.3030502@nteczone.com> <56EEE286.5090505@alum.mit.edu> <56F09E03.5020200@nteczone.com>
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <56F16266.9090902@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 11:19:02 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56F09E03.5020200@nteczone.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrOIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixO6iqJuZ9DHM4NEtYYupyx+zODB6LFny kymAMYrbJimxpCw4Mz1P3y6BO+PPujNsBcu9Kz7f+cTYwNhg08XIySEhYCLxfOUkpi5GLg4h ga2MEn9mLWCFcH4zSTzavZgdpEpYwFJi3t73LCC2iICwxIy3f9kgiq4zSuxrOwBWxCagJTHn 0H+wIl4BbYlXm9oZuxg5OFgEVCWWnkwACYsKpEncmrkdqkRQ4uTMJ2A2p4COxKsFbxhBbGYB W4k7c3czQ9jyEtvfzmGewMg3C0nLLCRls5CULWBkXsUol5hTmqubm5iZU5yarFucnJiXl1qk a6yXm1mil5pSuokREmh8Oxjb18scYhTgYFTi4W3Y8CFMiDWxrLgy9xCjJAeTkihvjdvHMCG+ pPyUyozE4oz4otKc1OJDjBIczEoivH2xQDnelMTKqtSifJiUNAeLkjiv2hJ1PyGB9MSS1OzU 1ILUIpisDAeHkgRvQiJQo2BRanpqRVpmTglCmomDE2Q4l5RIcWpeSmpRYmlJRjwo9uKLgdEH kuIB2vs6AWRvcUFiLlAUovUUo6KUOO8hkIQASCKjNA9uLCx9vGIUB/pSmHcyyHYeYOqB634F NJgJaLBL5DuQwSWJCCmpBsZtu/1z4yarF9fLF+z8WPZCRyuzS8piKlMWq/yabYsy9bgfq15j WO2T25lZtOJ+Y/qx+RHz911nYNRvN/7q0WlVVsAla3Qv02ZFd37JBA6eZvOVb6om6uo8rA5Z x/xNQe1Q8OHZWRttmO0WV5xqFXkQspFrMWPDlpmlhTMmazLxuXSf/fH+jhJLcUaioRZzUXEi AOF+C4T6AgAA
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/AIXqH5JKwO2NjxJvtvsGybKZdlw>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] IANA registration of SDP attributes
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 22 Mar 2016 15:28:24 -0000
On 3/21/16 9:21 PM, Christian Groves wrote: > Hello Paul, > > Yes I think it is fuzzy. draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp is using a=setup for > SCTP, by the definition below it would need to update the registry to > add a reference. There's probably other attributes where this is the > case also (e.g. a=connection). For consistency all the existing > attributes would need to be checked when reformatting the registry. > > I do agree that it would be nice to have a link from each SDP attribute > to the RFCs that are using it but I think the genie is out of the bottle > on this one. > > With the light agenda maybe this is something to discuss in Argentina? I won't be there, but will try to call in. For once the time difference isn't much for me! Thanks, Paul > Regards, Christian > > On 21/03/2016 4:48 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote: >> On 3/19/16 10:27 PM, Christian Groves wrote: >>> With the current registry don't only documents that introduce NEW >>> attributes get included in the registry? >>> >>> dcsa (MSRP) and dcsa (BFCP) don't define new attributes they use setup. >>> This is similar to the fact that multiple protocols at the media level >>> use a=setup but we don't add references to them in the registry. >>> >>> So do we now say that if a draft/RFC uses an existing media level >>> attribute in a DCSA that must be added to the registry with a dcsa >>> indication? >> >> ISTM that a document that broadens the applicability of an attribute >> ought to be recorded in the registry. >> >> I expect that this is a bit fuzzy. For instance, the use of setup with >> TCP was defined. If a new proto of 'TCP/FOO' is defined that runs over >> TCP, and simply uses setup for establishing the TCP part, then maybe >> it doesn't need to be recorded in the registry. >> >> But if setup is used for something other than TCP, or also used for >> some semantic over and above its use for TCP, then it surely ought to >> be recorded. (For instance, when it is used to control initialization >> of some other protocol over TCP.) >> >> I expect that this is less than clear, and may be controversial. Seems >> to need more discussion. >> >> Thanks, >> Paul >> >>> Regards, Christian >>> >>> On 12/03/2016 3:46 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote: >>>> On 3/11/16 11:15 AM, Juergen Stoetzer-Bradler wrote: >>>>> Paul, >>>>> >>>>> The last alternative would have the advantage that different >>>>> subprotocol >>>>> documents could be referenced for the same attribute. Like e.g. for >>>>> the >>>>> setup attribute (if there were BFCP over data channel transport >>>>> specific >>>>> aspects): >>>>> >>>>> *SDP Name* *Level(s)* *Reference(s)* >>>>> accept-types >>>>> media, >>>>> dcsa(MSRP) >>>>> [RFC4975] >>>>> [draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel] >>>>> cat >>>>> session >>>>> [RFC4566] >>>>> fmtp >>>>> media,source [RFC4566][RFC5576] >>>>> mediaclk >>>>> session,media,source >>>>> [RFC7273] >>>>> ptime >>>>> media >>>>> [RFC4566] >>>>> recvonly >>>>> session,media, >>>>> dcsa(MSRP) >>>>> [RFC4566][RFC4975] >>>>> [draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel] >>>>> setup >>>>> session, media >>>>> dcsa(MSRP) >>>>> dcsa(BFCP) >>>>> [RFC4145] >>>>> [draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel] >>>>> [draft-schwarz-mmusic-bfcp-usage-data-channel] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Therefore I'd be in favor of your last alternative. >>>> >>>> Let's see what other comments we get, especially from Flemming. >>>> >>>> Then, if this is preferred direction we can work on refining it. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Paul >>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Juergen >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 10.03.2016 19:48, EXT Paul Kyzivat wrote: >>>>>> [splitting off from the thread on data-channel-sdpneg] >>>>>> >>>>>> Currently IANA has five(!) separate registries for sdp attributes: >>>>>> >>>>>> att-field (session level) >>>>>> att-field (both session and media level) >>>>>> att-field (media level only) >>>>>> att-field (source level) >>>>>> att-field (unknown level) >>>>>> >>>>>> They all have the same format: >>>>>> >>>>>> *Type** >>>>>> * *SDP Name** >>>>>> * *Reference** >>>>>> * >>>>>> att-field (session level) cat [RFC4566] >>>>>> att-field (both session and media level) recvonly >>>>>> [RFC4566] >>>>>> att-field (both session and media level) mediaclk >>>>>> [RFC7273] >>>>>> att-field (media level only) accept-types >>>>>> [RFC4975] >>>>>> att-field (media level only) fmtp >>>>>> [RFC4566] >>>>>> att-field (source level) fmtp >>>>>> [RFC5576] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This format is a pain, because it is hard to look an attribute up if >>>>>> you don't know at what level(s) it is valid. It also has the >>>>>> potential >>>>>> to allow an attribute name to be registered for unrelated purposes if >>>>>> the type is different. (IMO that would be bad.) >>>>>> >>>>>> A long time ago (several years now), as part of the 4566bis work, I >>>>>> proposed that these tables be merged into one. It was my impression >>>>>> that this was agreed and would be done. But I don't recall any >>>>>> agreement on the logistics of doing so. >>>>>> >>>>>> My thought was that the combined table would look like: >>>>>> >>>>>> *SDP Name* *Level(s)* *Reference(s)* >>>>>> accept-types >>>>>> media >>>>>> [RFC4975] >>>>>> cat >>>>>> session >>>>>> [RFC4566] >>>>>> fmtp >>>>>> media,source [RFC4566][RFC5576] >>>>>> mediaclk >>>>>> session,media,source >>>>>> [RFC7273] >>>>>> ptime >>>>>> media >>>>>> [RFC4566] >>>>>> recvonly >>>>>> session,media >>>>>> [RFC4566] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Then we get to data channel attributes. My thought is to incorporate >>>>>> them into this table structure, as yet another "level". E.g., >>>>>> >>>>>> *SDP Name* *Level(s)* *Reference(s)* >>>>>> accept-types >>>>>> media,dcsa >>>>>> [RFC4975][draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel] >>>>>> cat >>>>>> session >>>>>> [RFC4566] >>>>>> fmtp >>>>>> media,source [RFC4566][RFC5576] >>>>>> mediaclk >>>>>> session,media,source >>>>>> [RFC7273] >>>>>> ptime >>>>>> media >>>>>> [RFC4566] >>>>>> recvonly >>>>>> session,media,dcsa >>>>>> [RFC4566][RFC4975][draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> (And this could also be extended for websockets if somebody >>>>>> proposes a >>>>>> way to negotiate attributes for data channels too.) >>>>>> >>>>>> Using this format, if you want to know more than the name and the >>>>>> level(s) at which it can be used you need to consult the references. >>>>>> And when there are multiple references you don't know which one(s) >>>>>> you >>>>>> need to consult. This can be "fixed" by including more information >>>>>> from the reference into the registry. Conversely, we could strip it >>>>>> down further and remove the levels from the registry - so you need to >>>>>> consult the references for that too. >>>>>> >>>>>> For instance, if we wanted to simplify finding the right reference >>>>>> for >>>>>> the level you are interested in, we could do: >>>>>> >>>>>> *SDP Name* *Level(s)* *Reference(s)* >>>>>> accept-types >>>>>> media, >>>>>> dcsa >>>>>> [RFC4975] >>>>>> [draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel] >>>>>> cat >>>>>> session >>>>>> [RFC4566] >>>>>> fmtp >>>>>> media,source [RFC4566][RFC5576] >>>>>> mediaclk >>>>>> session,media,source >>>>>> [RFC7273] >>>>>> ptime >>>>>> media >>>>>> [RFC4566] >>>>>> recvonly >>>>>> session,media, >>>>>> dcsa >>>>>> [RFC4566][RFC4975] >>>>>> [draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Or we could go further, and break the dcsa level down by subprotocol: >>>>>> >>>>>> *SDP Name* *Level(s)* *Reference(s)* >>>>>> accept-types >>>>>> media, >>>>>> dcsa(MSRP) >>>>>> [RFC4975] >>>>>> [draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel] >>>>>> cat >>>>>> session >>>>>> [RFC4566] >>>>>> fmtp >>>>>> media,source [RFC4566][RFC5576] >>>>>> mediaclk >>>>>> session,media,source >>>>>> [RFC7273] >>>>>> ptime >>>>>> media >>>>>> [RFC4566] >>>>>> recvonly >>>>>> session,media, >>>>>> dcsa(MSRP) >>>>>> [RFC4566][RFC4975] >>>>>> [draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 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 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] IANA registration of SDP attributes Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] IANA registration of SDP attributes Juergen Stoetzer-Bradler
- Re: [MMUSIC] IANA registration of SDP attributes Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] IANA registration of SDP attributes Christian Groves
- Re: [MMUSIC] IANA registration of SDP attributes Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] IANA registration of SDP attributes Christian Groves
- Re: [MMUSIC] IANA registration of SDP attributes Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] IANA registration of SDP attributes Flemming Andreasen
- Re: [MMUSIC] IANA registration of SDP attributes Christian Groves
- Re: [MMUSIC] IANA registration of SDP attributes Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] IANA registration of SDP attributes Christian Groves
- Re: [MMUSIC] IANA registration of SDP attributes Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] IANA registration of SDP attributes Flemming Andreasen
- Re: [MMUSIC] IANA registration of SDP attributes Flemming Andreasen
- Re: [MMUSIC] IANA registration of SDP attributes Flemming Andreasen