Re: [MMUSIC] Draft new version: draft-dtls-sdp-23
Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Tue, 18 April 2017 20:15 UTC
Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79690127876 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 13:15:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.935
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.935 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 2xeiw709AzKR for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 13:15:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resqmta-ch2-12v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-12v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:44]) (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 14E60131475 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 13:15:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resomta-ch2-13v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.109]) by resqmta-ch2-12v.sys.comcast.net with SMTP id 0ZWndze78dlFQ0ZWydaLvi; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 20:15:20 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.110] ([24.62.227.142]) by resomta-ch2-13v.sys.comcast.net with SMTP id 0ZWxd6zZJAtR20ZWyd8x3u; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 20:15:20 +0000
References: <D51BC4AA.1B35F%christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> <08acc295-e7bd-09f6-f957-7f88c5241593@alum.mit.edu> <CAD5OKxvEjvpWchhNHkJ_ZFY02CSb5d9GxTs7bvZGBUn3u2m2Ug@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Cc: IETF MMUSIC WG <mmusic@ietf.org>
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <d3c511ba-745e-f909-4c8e-93712f780992@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 16:15:19 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAD5OKxvEjvpWchhNHkJ_ZFY02CSb5d9GxTs7bvZGBUn3u2m2Ug@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfAV86x7ScpAnk4ttEbKvFlhqsxTUSvLrXBUn3TTXknpgELeEPHBA11HK5mFknZ+zPXcHizMr4cbEM40hRVaQK5FgY4sSd0o+mNDniZgSlhHSChFXbC/J PpiIc5nAbwATXIFbxSfFBA3Un5XUjPdDzv8hnL2xIzFdvk/IVKqhKUz+RqLsATBCCAFsFSmTuGioWmecmmxi4FpzVk9gQceV6UA=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/HFx-gIom1w0cG7x99PeVeUhIMbI>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Draft new version: draft-dtls-sdp-23
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 20:15:24 -0000
(retargeting to mmusic) On 4/18/17 3:08 PM, Roman Shpount wrote: > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu > <mailto:pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>> wrote: > > Section 8 has a number of normative requirements around the use of > 'tls-id'. This seems to break interoperability with existing > implementations that follow RFC4572. > > What is the intent here regarding interoperability with RFC4572? > Perhaps this doc should now also be a formal update to that. > > > Should we reword those requirements that they only apply when tls-id is > used? > > So instead of > > If an offerer or answerer inserts an SDP 'connection' attribute with a > 'new' value in the offer/answer, the offerer/answerer MUST also insert > an SDP 'tls-id' attribute with a new unique value. > > We would say: > > If an offerer or answerer inserts an SDP 'connection' attribute with a > 'new' value in the offer/answer and also provides SDP 'tls-id' > attribute, the value of tls-id' attribute MUST be new and unique. > > And instead of > > If an offerer or answerer inserts an SDP 'connection' attribute with a > 'existing' value in the offer/answer, and if a previously established > TLS connection exists, the offerer/answerer MUST also insert an SDP > 'tls-id' attribute with the previously assigned value in the offer/answer. > > We would say > > If an offerer or answerer inserts an SDP 'connection' attribute with a > 'existing' value in the offer/answer, if a previously established TLS > connection exists, and if the offerer/answerer provided 'tls-id' value > in the previous offer/answer which established this TLS connection, > the offerer/answerer MUST also insert an SDP 'tls-id' attribute with the > previously assigned value in the offer/answer. I think that would do the trick. > If we reword these statements like this, do we still need to specify > that this document updates RFC4572? In that case I think not. Thanks, Paul
- [MMUSIC] Draft new version: draft-dtls-sdp-23 Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] Draft new version: draft-dtls-sdp-23 Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] Draft new version: draft-dtls-sdp-23 Paul Kyzivat