Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

BTW, ISTM that whatever is decided here will apply equally to attributes 
used with a=ssrc.

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 2/8/16 12:09 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> On 2/8/16 11:09 AM, Flemming Andreasen wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2/6/16 1:44 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>>> On 2/4/16 10:43 PM, Christian Groves wrote:
>>>> Isn't this the approach we're taking today?
>>>> draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg has general text and specific
>>>> drafts are used to describe protocols that use the mechanism (i.e.
>>>> draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel &
>>>> draft-ietf-clue-datachannel).
>>>
>>> It remains to be seen if that will be enough. E.g., there currently
>>> aren't any iana considerations in
>>> draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel.
>>>
>>> Suppose I encounter some sdp that uses msrp over a data channel, but
>>> that usage is unknown to me. How do I find the spec (the reference to
>>> draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel) that defines that usage?
>>>
>>> I would like to think that the iana registries will allow me to trace
>>> back to the relevant specs.
>>>
>> No disagreement on that part, however having taken another look at both
>> sdpneg and the msrp-usage documents, I still don't agree with your
>> original request for all (existing and new) attributes to specify how
>> they may or may not be used with the dcsa attribute defined by sdpneg.
>>
>> As Christian noted, the sub-protocol specifics are defined in individual
>> documents (like msrp-usage), which calls your the parameters that are at
>> least needed to be supported for that usage. Taking MSRP as an example,
>> why isn't that enough, and how do you see the resulting set of
>> attributes that may or may not be used with MSRP differ between use in a
>> data-channel (and hence encapsulated in dcsa) or as a regular media
>> stream ?
>
> Based on this discussion, I conclude that it should be sufficient for
> this draft to say that before an attribute can be used with dcsa, such
> usage must be defined somewhere. This could be either:
> - as part of the definition of the attribute, OR
> - as part of the definition of the protocol referenced on the m-line.
>
>      Thanks,
>      Paul
>
>> Also, it would be good to hear from more people on this, including the
>> document authors.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> -- Flemming
>>
>>
>>>     Thanks,
>>>     Paul
>>>
>>>> Regards, Christian
>>>>
>>>> On 4/02/2016 3:58 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>>>>> On 2/3/16 5:42 PM, Flemming Andreasen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not concerned about the IANA part. I agree that *if* we need to
>>>>>> expliclty specify attribute interactions for "dcsa", then it
>>>>>> should be
>>>>>> part of the IANA registry. What I am not agreeing with at this
>>>>>> point is
>>>>>> that there is indeed a need to explicitly speficy these
>>>>>> interactions as
>>>>>> opposed to relying on a more general algorithmic approach (plus the
>>>>>> offerer being responsible for generating a valid offer if he wants to
>>>>>> establish a data channel).
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, an obvious one is that the protocol(s) the attribute pertains to
>>>>> need to be defined to work over data channels.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Thanks,
>>>>>     Paul
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> mmusic mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> mmusic mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mmusic mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>>> .
>>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>