Re: [MMUSIC] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-20

Hi Bo,
I am not sure I understand the issue. According to section 9.1

A subprotocol may simultaneously be defined for data channel
   transport and for Websocket transport.  In such a case the
   "Subprotocol Definition" and "Reference" cells in the subprotocol's
   row of the IANA "WebSocket Subprotocol Name Registry" table should
   contain two entries.  One entry in each of these cells should refer
   to the Websocket related subprotocol specification, and the other
   entry should refer to the data channel related subprotocol
   specification.

This applies to the msrp case if it was registered also for data channel.

I am not sure what we will have with a second registry is it only for data channel usage and we will not register it also in the web socket registry?

Roni

-----Original Message-----
From: mmusic [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bo Burman
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2018 10:55 AM
To: Ben Campbell; Paul Kyzivat
Cc: mmusic@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-20

When looking at the now expired draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel, I think the content clearly hints that at least for MSRP, a tag without further specification would simply not achieve interoperable implementations. I believe the same would be valid for many other subprotocols. Therefore, I share Ben's concern that FCFS doesn't seem generally sufficient.

/Bo (as individual)

-----Original Message-----
From: mmusic <mmusic-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Ben Campbell
Sent: den 27 november 2018 23:53
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Cc: mmusic@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-20

> On Nov 27, 2018, at 1:40 PM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> On 11/26/18 5:32 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> 
>>> §9.1: What is the rational for sharing the websocket subprotocol registry rather than creating a new one for data channels? The websocket subprotocol name registry has a policy of “First Come First Served”. This draft seems to state requirements for subprotocol specifications, but FCFS does not require specifications.
> 
> IIRC this choice was made by the rtcweb wg. I don't recall how it was made.
> 
> It is my impression there is an expectation that many websocket protocols could also be used over data channels in order to get multiplexing of the socket.

I can accept that the reason might be “because that was what the WG wanted”, but isn’t there still a mismatch with the registration policy? This draft seems to expect subprotocol specifications -- is FCFS acceptable?

> 
> 	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