Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC on draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-06.txt

["Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <[e-mail]>]

Works for me. Thanks Christer.

Cheers,
Charles

From: Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Friday, February 19, 2016 at 6:31 PM
To: Charles Eckel <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: "Flemming Andreasen (fandreas)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: RE: [MMUSIC] WGLC on draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-06.txt

Hi Charles,

Thanks for your comments! I will implement all but 6) as suggested.

Regarding 6), it is not forbidden to use the 'connection' attribute in the m- line if it is used for something else than the DTLS connection. The subsequent paragraph gives an example of SCTP usage with DTLS.

But, I can combine the paragraphs, and modify:

"This specification does not define the usage of the SDP 'connection' attribute [ref] for negotiating a DTLS connection. However, the attribute MAY be used if the DTLS connection is used together with another protocol, e.g. SCTP or TCP, for which the usage of the attribute has been defined."

Regards,

Christer

Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Charles Eckel (eckelcu)<mailto:[e-mail]>
Sent: 19/02/2016 17:35
To: mmusic<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: Flemming Andreasen (fandreas)<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC on draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-06.txt

I reviewed the draft and have some minor comments.

1) Section 1, the second paragraph is redundant and can be removed. It is
well stated with additional content in the paragraph that immediately
follows.

2) Section 3.1
s/following to the procedures/following the procedures

3) Section 3.2 and 3.3
OLD: "the endpoint MUST either change its DTLS role, its fingerprint value
and/or use²
NEW: "the endpoint MUST change its DTLS role, change its fingerprint
value, and/or use"

4) Section 5.1
OLD: "e.g. regarding usage of usage specific SDP attributes etc²
NEW: ³e.g. regarding usage of specific SDP attributes²

5) Section 5.1
s/and needs/and need
s/or whether a previous/or a previous

6) Section 5.1
OLD: "Endpoints MUST NOT use the SDP 'connection' attribute [RFC4145] when
   negotiating a DTLS association.²
NEW: "Endpoints MUST NOT use the SDP 'connection' attribute [RFC4145]
within the same ³m=³ line in which they are negotiating a DTLS
association.²

7) Section 5.3
s/receives and offer/receives an offer
s/towards the the offerer/towards the offerer

8) Section 11
IANA considerations to be updated as Paul already noted.

Cheers,
Charles


On 2/5/16, 8:29 AM, "mmusic on behalf of Flemming Andreasen (fandreas)"
<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> on behalf of [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

>Greetings MMUSIC
>
>This is to announce a 2 week WGLC on the  draft:
>
>      https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-06.txt
>
>as Proposed Standard. Please review and provide any comments you may
>have on the document by Friday, February 19, 2016. Comments should be
>sent to the document authors and the MMUSIC WG list. If you review the
>document but do not have any comments, please send a note to that effect
>as well.
>
>Thanks
>
>-- Flemming (MMUSIC co-chair)
>
>_______________________________________________
>mmusic mailing list
>[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic