Re: [MMUSIC] draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-07 SCTP SDP syntax question

"Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht)" <albrecht.schwarz@alcatel-lucent.com> Wed, 01 October 2014 12:42 UTC

Return-Path: <albrecht.schwarz@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C667B1A0330 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Oct 2014 05:42:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.686
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.686 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786] autolearn=ham
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 eBgbaH-JGw8n for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Oct 2014 05:42:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpgre-esg-01.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C9E2B1A0337 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Oct 2014 05:42:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.239.2.122]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 869247D4FC894; Wed, 1 Oct 2014 12:42:42 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.111]) by fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id s91Cgij6026776 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 1 Oct 2014 14:42:44 +0200
Received: from FR711WXCHMBA03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.3.75]) by FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.111]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 1 Oct 2014 14:42:45 +0200
From: "Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht)" <albrecht.schwarz@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, Christian Groves <Christian.Groves@nteczone.com>, Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>
Thread-Topic: [MMUSIC] draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-07 SCTP SDP syntax question
Thread-Index: AQHP3KfyS5OvwiZLQEuGEinmeFzmuZwZfrEAgAE5V4CAAARPgIAAQooAgAAv9zA=
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 12:42:44 +0000
Message-ID: <786615F3A85DF44AA2A76164A71FE1AC337882@FR711WXCHMBA03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <542A9E4B.2050608@nteczone.com> <542AA680.1030809@nteczone.com> <2AB21794-B955-48A3-ACC1-B0D838354BFA@ericsson.com> <542BB0F7.3090608@nteczone.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D46209F@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D46209F@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.41]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/FQ-qy3g_FBSg5KquHdlnP7DSTJQ
Cc: "<mmusic@ietf.org>" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-07 SCTP SDP syntax question
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 01 Oct 2014 12:42:51 -0000

> I think we need to be careful with the terminology.
> As far as I understand, the m- lines describes an SCTP connection - not an SCTP association - and the sctp-fmt defines the usage of that SCTP connection.

Christer, 
there isn't any concept of an "SCTP connection" (see RFC 4960)! Rather SCTP association, SCTP path, SCTP stream.

If you are refering implicitly to the OSI concept of a (N)-connection (ITU-T X.200), then an OSI (SCTP)-connection would be mapped to the IETF SCTP association in my understanding.

Regards,
Albrecht

PS
Perhaps you mean sth like, ".. the m- lines describes an IP transport connection for SCTP, which relates to an SCTP association ..."


-----Original Message-----
From: mmusic [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christer Holmberg
Sent: Mittwoch, 1. Oktober 2014 13:43
To: Christian Groves; Salvatore Loreto
Cc: <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-07 SCTP SDP syntax question

Hi,

I think we need to be careful with the terminology.

As far as I understand, the m- lines describes an SCTP connection - not an SCTP association - and the sctp-fmt defines the usage of that SCTP connection.

Depending on the usage, there may then be multiple SCTP associations - for example as in the case of a data-channel connection usage, where the number of SCTP associations will depend on the number of data channels.

So, if you want to use BFCP and MSRP, my understanding is that you would need two m- lines (unless, of course, you transport BFCP and MSRP within data channels).

Regards,

Christer

-----Original Message-----
From: mmusic [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christian Groves
Sent: 1. lokakuuta 2014 10:45
To: Salvatore Loreto
Cc: <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-07 SCTP SDP syntax question

Hello Salvatore,

Thanks for the replies. Please see some comments below.

Regards, Christian

On 1/10/2014 5:29 PM, Salvatore Loreto wrote:
> Hi Christian,
>
> thanks a lot for reading and reviewing the draft see more in line
>
> On Sep 30, 2014, at 3:48 PM, Christian Groves <Christian.Groves@nteczone.com> wrote:
>
>> I seemed to have got cut and paste happy in 1) below. The "1*(SP sctp-fmt)" should only apply to "DTLS/SCTP".
>>
>> Christian
>>
>> On 30/09/2014 10:12 PM, Christian Groves wrote:
>>> Hello Salvatore,
>>>
>>> There seems to be several issues with the updated syntax:
>>>
>>> 1) Cl.4.1 Media Description: With the updated syntax the ability to have more than one usage of the SCTP association has been lost as "sctp-fmt" is a single value.
>
> <Sal>
> there have been several discussion about the ability to have more than 
> one usage of the SCTP association, and has been agreed not to allow it.
> So each 'm' line describes a single SCTP association;  each association has only one single specify usage.
> </Sal>

[CNG] So how would I specify in SDP a scenario where BFCP uses a DTLS/SCTP association and MSRP uses a DTLS/SCTP association where they both use the same DTLS connection? Are these to be separate m-lines?
>
>
> ..snip..
>>> 3) Cl.4.1.2: There appears to be a formal space (SP) missing from the syntax between association-usage and max-message-size.
>>>
>>> sctpmap-attr = "a=fmtp:" association-usage [max-message-size]
>>>
>>> should be:
>>> sctpmap-attr = "a=fmtp:" association-usage [SP max-message-size]
>>>
>>> The current syntax allows an fmtp usage with no max-message-size parameter, e.g. "a=fmtp:bfcp". Should this be allowed?
> <Sal>
> this has been discussed back in April or May. It has been decided that the max-message-size parameter is optional.
> In the case it is not present the default value is 64K </Sal>
[CNG] I agree that the max-message-size parameter is optional, in that case an endpoint wouldn't specify the whole a=ftmp: line. It seems strange to allow the endpoint to specify half a line?

>>> 5) Cl.4.1.2: "If the parameter is not present, the implementation 
>>> should provide a default, with a suggested value of 64K." Is this 64,000 or is 65,535 bytes?
[CNG] I think you skipped this?

>>> 7) Cl.10: How will this registry relate to the "WebSocket Subprotocol Name Registry" (http://www.iana.org/assignments/websocket/websocket.xml#subprotocol-name)?
> <Sal>
> It is not related. The 'association-usage' specifies how the SCTP association will be used.
> For example in the case of webrtc-datachannel value it would indicate 
> how to pair certain streams, how to consider specific stream etc.
> as described in 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol-08 and in 
> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/rtcweb/draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel/
>
> the WebSocket Subprotocol Name Registry is used to populate the 
> protocol field in the protocol field in 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol-08#section
> -5
>
> </Sal>
[CNG] So if I use the SCTP association for "bfcp" then i'd need to document this in the new registry associated with the draft? and if I then used "bfcp" for webrtc-datachannel then i'd need to update the websocket registry. Two places for the same protocol?


_______________________________________________
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