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
>