Re: [MMUSIC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-04.txt

Mohammed,

I think it is not acceptable to mention altc in the example.
If I recollect correctly, the intention of the text is to specify that ICE MUST be 
preferred over 'ccap' for IPv4/v6 address negotiation.

If we add 'altc' as another example it basically means that the proprietary 'altc' is preferred over 'ccap'.
I don't think that a standards track RFC should give the message that proprietary is preferred.
Based on this issue I think the current text in the draft does not work.
I would explicitly mention the relation of ICE and 'ccap'. 
The relation to other mechanism such as 'altc' needs to be treated in hte specification of that mechanism.

Thus I propose to rephrase to:

If an offerer has implemented Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) [RFC5245] and 
the 'ccap' attribute it MUST use ICE to select between different connection addresses 
(e.g.  "IP4" and "IP6" or different IP addresses within the same IP address family).

Regards
Thomas  

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com 
> [mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com] 
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 13. März 2013 13:40
> An: Stach, Thomas; Simo.Veikkolainen@nokia.com; mmusic@ietf.org
> Betreff: RE : [MMUSIC] I-D Action: 
> draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-04.txt
> 
> Dear Thomas,
> 
> I'm not proposing to change the existing behavior; I'm just 
> asking whether it is acceptable to add an additional example 
> to the one already cited in the text.
> Wouldn't that be acceptable?
> 
> You can propose to add another example if you have any in mind.
> 
> Cheers,
> Med
> 
> ________________________________________
> De : Stach, Thomas [thomas.stach@siemens-enterprise.com]
> Date d'envoi : mercredi 13 mars 2013 17:57
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN; Simo.Veikkolainen@nokia.com; 
> mmusic@ietf.org
> Objet : AW: [MMUSIC] I-D Action: 
> draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-04.txt
> 
> Mohammed,
> 
> I think you have draft-boucadair-mmusic-altc in mind.
> This is an individual submission intended to document some 
> proporietary mechanism.
> I don't think we should make restrictions in a standards 
> track document in support of proprietary mechanisms.
> Otherwise I could also think of additional proprietary stuff 
> that could be mentioned as well.
> 
> 
> Regards
> Thomas
> 
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: mmusic-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org]
> > Im Auftrag von mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
> > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 13. März 2013 11:20
> > An: Simo.Veikkolainen@nokia.com; mmusic@ietf.org
> > Betreff: Re: [MMUSIC] I-D Action:
> > draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-04.txt
> >
> > Hi Simo,
> >
> > The document says:
> >
> > The 'ccap' attribute MUST NOT be used in
> >    situations where an existing mechanism (such as Interactive
> >    Connectivity Establishment (ICE) [RFC5245]) can be used to select
> >    between different connection addresses (e.g.  "IP4" and "IP6" or
> >    different IP addresses within the same IP address family).
> >
> > Would it be possible to change it to the following:
> >
> > NEW:
> >
> > The 'ccap' attribute MUST NOT be used in
> >    situations where a mechanism (such as Interactive
> >    Connectivity Establishment (ICE) [RFC5245] or [ALTC]) is
> > used to select
> >    between different connection addresses (e.g.  "IP4" and "IP6" or
> >    different IP addresses within the same IP address family).
> >
> >
> > Thanks.
> > Cheers,
> > Med
> >
> >
> > >-----Message d'origine-----
> > >De : mmusic-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org]
> > >De la part de Simo.Veikkolainen@nokia.com
> > >Envoyé : mercredi 13 mars 2013 16:09
> > >À : mmusic@ietf.org
> > >Objet : Re: [MMUSIC] I-D Action:
> > >draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-04.txt
> > >
> > >Hello,
> > >
> > >We just submitted a new version of the miscellaneous-caps
> > >draft, with text that states that if the connection data
> > >capability attribute (a=ccap) is used the port number in the
> > >resulting SDP MUST be the same as in the original "m=" line,
> > >except for PSTN type bearers (when the port number used is 9).
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >Simo
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: mmusic-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org]
> > >On Behalf Of ext internet-drafts@ietf.org
> > >Sent: 13. maaliskuuta 2013 15:39
> > >To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
> > >Cc: mmusic@ietf.org
> > >Subject: [MMUSIC] I-D Action:
> > >draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-04.txt
> > >
> > >
> > >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line
> > >Internet-Drafts directories.
> > > This draft is a work item of the Multiparty Multimedia
> > >Session Control Working Group of the IETF.
> > >
> > >     Title           : Miscellaneous Capabilities
> > >Negotiation in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)
> > >     Author(s)       : Miguel A. Garcia-Martin
> > >                          Simo Veikkolainen
> > >                          Robert R. Gilman
> > >     Filename        :
> > >draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-04.txt
> > >     Pages           : 21
> > >     Date            : 2013-03-13
> > >
> > >Abstract:
> > >   SDP has been extended with a capability negotiation mechanism
> > >   framework that allows the endpoints to negotiate
> > transport protocols
> > >   and attributes.  This framework has been extended with a media
> > >   capabilities negotiation mechanism that allows endpoints to
> > >negotiate
> > >   additional media-related capabilities.  This negotiation
> > is embedded
> > >   into the widely-used SDP offer/answer procedures.
> > >
> > >   This memo extends the SDP capability negotiation
> > framework to allow
> > >   endpoints to negotiate three additional SDP capabilities.  In
> > >   particular, this memo provides a mechanism to negotiate 
> bandwidth
> > >   ('b=' line), connection data ('c=' line), and titles
> > ('i=' line for
> > >   each session or media).
> > >
> > >
> > >The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> > >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscella
> > >neous-caps
> > >
> > >There's also a htmlized version available at:
> > >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-04
> > >
> > >A diff from the previous version is available at:
> > >http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscella
> > >neous-caps-04
> > >
> > >
> > >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> > >ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >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
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mmusic mailing list
> > mmusic@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
> >
> 