[MMUSIC] Use of the "TBD" Mux Category in bfcpbis.

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I’d like to get the opinions of MMUSIC participants on the use of the “TBD” mux category.

draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis (currently in IESG evaluation) defines a new SDP attribute “bfcpver”. Since it’s associated with bfcp, which does not specify mux/demux procedures, the draft gives it a mux-category of “TBD”. Is that the right choice? If not, what is?

draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes describes TBD as follows:

>    The attributes in the TBD category have not been analyzed under the
>    proposed multiplexing framework and SHOULD NOT be multiplexed.

However, mux-attributes goes on to use TBD for several attributes, including one for bfcp, with notes to the effect of the following:

>    NOTE: As per section 9 of [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation
> ],
>    there exists no publicly available specification that defines
>    procedures for multiplexing/demultiplexing BFCP streams over a single
>    5-tuple.  Once such a specification is available, the multiplexing
>    categories assignments for the attributes in this section could be
>    revisited.

That doesn’t really fit the definition. It seems more like the attributes _have_ been analyzed, and the note states the conclusion.

This is further complicated by the fact that  the only change 4566bis allows to an existing mux-category registration is to move from “TBD” to something else. Any other choice will make life harder if we later update bfcp with mux/demux procedures.

I am not (yet) suggesting a change to mux-attributes or 4566bis; I’m just trying to figure out the right way to specify mux-categories for new attributes.

Thanks!

Ben.