Re: [MMUSIC] Hitchhiker's guide to SIP SDP

["Severa, Michael J (Mike)" <[e-mail]>]

If the goal is to limit to SIP or even IMS environments then the title of the document should reflect that.

SDP is used in many non-SIP environments.

Mike

________________________________
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Gonzalo Salgueiro
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 7:19 AM
To: Mary Barnes
Cc: DRAGE, Keith (Keith); [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Hitchhiker's guide to SDP

I agree. Limiting it to SIP seems sufficiently Herculean for one document IMO.

Gonzalo

On Mar 7, 2012, at 10:03 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:

Per Albrecht response, I think we would open a can of worms if we want this to be a general guide on SDP for all usages.  I would prefer to keep it limited to SIP at this time, which I think is no small task. Then another document, modeled after this one,  could cover other usages if the interested parties think it would be helpful.

Mary.

On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 8:24 AM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
I notice RFC 3264 is mentioned as one of the core specifications.

This only becomes core when SDP is used in the context of SIP.

If I am a Megaco / H.248 user of SDP I suspect therefore I come up with a different viewpoint of what is core and what is not.

We may need to address these different viewpoints, unless you want to make a guide that is entirely focused on SIP usage.

Regards

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf
> Of Miguel A. Garcia
> Sent: 07 March 2012 10:56
> To: Bert Greevenbosch
> Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Hitchhiker's guide to SDP
>
> Bert,
>
> Here is another document with the same purpose. You can use it for
> inspiration. This is a bit more complex document, because it has to deal
> with several different protocols, rather than only one.
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds
>
> The other document that you need to consult is the IANA SDP Parameters
> registry at:
>
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-parameters/sdp-parameters.xml
>
> This contains a list of all the SDP extensions, and they all should be
> listed in the hitchhiker's guide.
>
> /Miguel
>
> On 07/03/2012 3:54, Bert Greevenbosch wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > On Monday, I have uploaded a v00 draft for "Hitchhiker's Guide to SDP".
> It is based on the "Hitchhiker's Guide to SIP" (RFC 5411). I have copied
> most initial text from there, and in addition included an initial list of
> RFCs / drafts that seem relevant.
> >
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-greevenbosch-hitchhikersguide-
> sdp/
> >
> > If the group is happy with this approach, I will be happy to maintain an
> editor's role, and write more text. Obviously other people's input will be
> highly appreciated, and indeed is needed.
> >
> > I look forward to your comments.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Bert
> >
> > P.S. Unfortunately, I forgot to include "mmusic" in the name of the
> draft. How to deal with this?
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf
> Of Christer Holmberg
> > Sent: 27 February 2012 04:53
> > To: Gonzalo Camarillo; Mary Barnes
> > Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> > Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Hitchhiker's guide to SDP
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > As a directorate member, I am willing to co-author such draft, should a
> decision to write one be taken.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Christer
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf
> Of Gonzalo Camarillo
> > Sent: 23. helmikuuta 2012 19:31
> > To: Mary Barnes
> > Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> > Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Hitchhiker's guide to SDP
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> > Gonzalo
> >
> > On 23/02/2012 7:06 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
> >> I would think that in order for the document to have integrity that at
> >> least one of the directorate members should at least be a co-author.
> >>   Otherwise, I see a lot more stuff falling through the cracks and
> >> needing to be resolved during WGLC and later, which usually isn't a
> >> good thing.  The SIP Hitchhiker's guide provides a good example in
> >> that the author was also a primary contributor to RFC3261, etc.
> >>
> >> Mary.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 6:30 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo
> >> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> >> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>      Hi Mary,
> >>
> >>      yes, the members of the SDP directorate would need to review such
> a
> >>      guide. However, the fact that they agreed to be members of the
> >>      directorate does not mean they will necessarily have cycles to
> >>      significantly contribute to the creation of the guide. We need to
> make
> >>      sure we have enough energy around this effort in order to start
> it.
> >>
> >>      Cheers,
> >>
> >>      Gonzalo
> >>
> >>      On 15/02/2012 7:14 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
> >>      >  I think this is a good idea.  I would think the experts that
> can
> >>      >  contribute (and should review) can be found in the new SDP
> >>      >  directorate:
> >>      >  http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/sdp.html
> >>      >  BTW, it would be nice to have a link to this page on the MMUSIC
> WG
> >>      wiki:
> >>      >  http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mmusic/trac/wiki
> >>      >
> >>      >  As far as whether to publish, I think it would be a good idea
> to
> >>      >  complete publication as IMHO that improves the integrity of the
> >>      >  information - i.e., more eyes review a published RFC than a
> draft.
> >>      >  It could later be updated to reflect more recent RFCs OR a
> "More of
> >>      >  Hitchhikers Guide" could be published.
> >>      >
> >>      >  Thanks,
> >>      >  Mary.
> >>      >
> >>      >  On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:29 AM, Bert Greevenbosch
> >>      >  <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> >>      <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>  wrote:
> >>      >>  Hi Miguel, Andrew, all,
> >>      >>
> >>      >>  Sounds like a good idea. I would be happy to volunteer to play
> a
> >>      central role in it (i.e. be the editor, create the initial draft,
> >>      ...), but I would need support from other experts too.
> >>      >>
> >>      >>  As for practicalities, I see that the "Hitchhiker's Guide to
> SIP"
> >>      has become an RFC (5411). That means that it has been frozen, and
> to
> >>      add new info new individual or WG drafts are needed.
> >>      >>
> >>      >>  Would this be the same approach for SDP? Currently, there are
> >>      already quite some new drafts that extend SDP. How will future
> >>      extensions be handled? Maybe it would be good to make it a
> permanent
> >>      WG draft, which is updated every now and then.
> >>      >>
> >>      >>  Best regards,
> >>      >>  Bert
> >>      >>
> >>      >>
> >>      >>  -----Original Message-----
> >>      >>  From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >>      [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>]
> On
> >>      Behalf Of Miguel A. Garcia
> >>      >>  Sent: 14 February 2012 15:42
> >>      >>  To: Andrew Allen
> >>      >>  Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >>      >>  Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Do we need to update in time 4566bis?
> >>      >>
> >>      >>  Sounds good to me too. If someone wants to start such draft...
> >>      >>
> >>      >>  /Miguel
> >>      >>
> >>      >>  On 13/02/2012 23:15, Andrew Allen wrote:
> >>      >>>
> >>      >>>  What about considering a hitchhikers guide to SDP similar to
> >>      what was done for SIP?
> >>      >>>
> >>      >>>  One umbrella document that points the reader to all the SDP
> >>      capabilities available that they might want to take advantage of.
> >>      >>>
> >>      >>>  Just a suggestion.
> >>      >>>
> >>      >>>  Andrew
> >>      >>>
> >>      >>>  ----- Original Message -----
> >>      >>>  From: Miguel A. Garcia [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> >>      <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>]
> >>      >>>  Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 06:23 AM
> >>      >>>  To: mmusic<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>
> >>      >>>  Subject: [MMUSIC] Do we need to update in time 4566bis?
> >>      >>>
> >>      >>>  <as an individual>
> >>      >>>
> >>      >>>  Hi all,
> >>      >>>
> >>      >>>  You know we are revising RFC 4566. So far, the effort has
> been
> >>      in bug fixing.
> >>      >>>
> >>      >>>  The first SDP version was published as RFC 2327 in 1998
> (i.e.,
> >>      14 years
> >>      >>>  ago), and was then revised as RFC 4566 in 2006.
> >>      >>>
> >>      >>>  Lots of things have happened since then. We have SDP offer
> answer,
> >>      >>>  Grouping, QoS, ATM, Bandwidth modifiers, TCP media, SDES,
> comeida,
> >>      >>>  labels, BFCP, FEC, ICE, CapNeg, and many other that are in
> the pipe.
> >>      >>>
> >>      >>>     From the point of view of a reader who takes 4566 (or its
> current
> >>      >>>  4566bis incarnation), I think it will be difficult for her or
> him to
> >>      >>>  understand a protocol that ignores those other extensions.
> For
> >>      example, I
> >>      >>>  recently post another e-mail where there is an apparent
> >>      contradiction
> >>      >>>  between 4566 and ICE (see
> >>      >>>  http://www.ietf.org/mail-
> archive/web/mmusic/current/msg09089.html ).
> >>      >>>
> >>      >>>  So, I was wondering if time has come to make not a bug
> correction in
> >>      >>>  4566bis, but also put that RFC in context with the other
> >>      extensions that
> >>      >>>  exist. This may include:
> >>      >>>
> >>      >>>  - Add minor extensions to the core document, similarly to
> what
> >>      we did
> >>      >>>  with IPv6 support (i.e., 4566 = 2327 + 3266). I don't know
> which
> >>      of these
> >>      >>>  extensions make sense to include, this would be an exercise
> to
> >>      do, but
> >>      >>>  let me give you one potential example: RFC 4574, the SDP
> "label"
> >>      >>>  attribute is a 6 pages RFC.
> >>      >>>
> >>      >>>  - Adding references to extensions, when it makes sense. For
> >>      example, ICE
> >>      >>>  should be referred somewhere (see my previous post regarding
> the "o"
> >>      >>>  line). I guess capneg could be also mentioned, perhaps
> others.
> >>      >>>
> >>      >>>  I know this is a bigger effort than anticipated, but the
> result
> >>      could
> >>      >>>  really help newcomers to this world.
> >>      >>>
> >>      >>>  Now, it is your turn to express your opinions. Please do it.
> >>      >>>
> >>      >>>  /Miguel
> >>      >>
> >>      >>  --
> >>      >>  Miguel A. Garcia
> >>      >>  [phone]<tel:%2B34-91-339-3608><tel:%2B34-91-339-3608>
> >>      >>  Ericsson Spain
> >>      >>  _______________________________________________
> >>      >>  mmusic mailing list
> >>      >>  [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >>      >>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
> >>      >>  _______________________________________________
> >>      >>  mmusic mailing list
> >>      >>  [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >>      >>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
> >>      >  _______________________________________________
> >>      >  mmusic mailing list
> >>      >  [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >>      >  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
> >>      >
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mmusic mailing list
> > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
> > _______________________________________________
> > mmusic mailing list
> > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
> > _______________________________________________
> > mmusic mailing list
> > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
> >
>
> --
> Miguel A. Garcia
> [phone]<tel:%2B34-91-339-3608>
> Ericsson Spain
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic

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