Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-01.txt

["Belling, Thomas (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[e-mail]>]

> I think the issues is how does a manffacture says on a spec sheet that
they want support half of it but not all of it. 

You could say that you support clause 3.1.1.  Bandwidth Capability,
3.1.2.  Connection Data Capability, or 3.1.3.  Title Capability.

The draft also defines three separate option tags bcap-v0",  "ccap-v0",
and "icap-v0", for those capabilities defined that you could refer to.

I hope this is good enough?

Thomas


-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
Of ext Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 3:28 PM
To: Miguel A. Garcia
Cc: Flemming Andreasen (fandreas); mmusic WG;
[e-mail]
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for
draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-01.txt


I think the issues is how does a manffacture says on a spec sheet that
they want support half of it but not all of it. I know that does not
matter for 3GPP usage but it sort of useful for others. Clearly this is
not a huge technical issues but a small procedural thing so I leave it
up to the chairs what they want to do. 

Any thoughts on making the changes so this works in world with more than
english? That was my far more relevant comment that is likely to also be
raised by IESG.



On Sep 29, 2012, at 1:34 AM, Miguel A. Garcia
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Cullen,
> 
> The draft is written as an independent collection of "objects". This
is avoid having three separate drafts.
> 
> It is possible to refer to parts of this draft. For example, I believe
3GPP only needs the connection data capability, but not the others, and
still they are fine with this draft.
> 
> Couldn't the same principle be applied by RTCweb?
> 
> /Miguel
> 
> On 28/09/2012 17:02, Atle Monrad wrote:
>> Hi
>> 
>> Is it really necessary to chop the draft up in pieces because others
may want to use just parts of it?
>> 
>> I find it more constuctive to finish this draft as is and let other
be able to build on and refer to the RFC if and when possible.
>> 
>> /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 Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
>> Sent: 28. september 2012 16:47
>> To: mmusic WG
>> Cc: Flemming Andreasen (fandreas); 
>> [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for 
>> draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-01.txt
>> 
>> 
>> Major comment
>> 
>> I think the title stuff should be split out to a separate draft. The
main reason is that you might want to build a dvicd that supported title
but did not supper the others and still be able to say what you were
doing was RFC X. For example, the RTC Web folks may want to use this.
>> 
>> Given the Title is meant to be human readable, I think it needs to be
extended to have normal i18n support.
>> 
>> Cullen
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sep 6, 2012, at 2:37 PM, Flemming Andreasen <[e-mail]>
wrote:
>> 
>>> This is to announce a 2 week Working Group Last Call for
>>> 
>>>      draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-01.txt
>>> 
>>> as Proposed Standard. Please review and provide any comments you may
have on the document by September 21, 2012. Comments should be sent to
the document authors and the MMUSIC WG list.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> 
>>>        Flemming
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Draft Info:
>>>  This draft is a work item of the Multiparty Multimedia Session
Control Working Group of the IETF.
>>> 
>>> 	Title           : Miscellanoues 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-01.txt
>>> 	Pages           : 19
>>> 	Date            : 2012-08-27
>>> 
>>> 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-miscellaneous
>>> -c
>>> aps
>>> 
>>> 
>>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>>> 
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-
>>> 01
>>> 
>>> 
>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>> 
>>> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous
>>> -c
>>> aps-01
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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
>> 
> 
> --
> Miguel A. Garcia
> [phone]
> Ericsson Spain
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic

_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic