Re: [MMUSIC] Do we really need TCP/DTLS/SCTP proto field?

Christer Holmberg <> Sat, 18 February 2017 09:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05DF31294D3 for <>; Sat, 18 Feb 2017 01:32:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yP_rPJzR3QTm for <>; Sat, 18 Feb 2017 01:32:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C486512941D for <>; Sat, 18 Feb 2017 01:32:31 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3a-f72d4980000021e0-f9-58a814ad20e8
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 6B.6E.08672.DA418A85; Sat, 18 Feb 2017 10:32:29 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Sat, 18 Feb 2017 10:31:48 +0100
From: Christer Holmberg <>
To: Roman Shpount <>, Ben Campbell <>
Thread-Topic: [MMUSIC] Do we really need TCP/DTLS/SCTP proto field?
Thread-Index: AQHSiGuZ0ghkIgIFz0iRXtxKyN1pOqFrt7kAgAAhoiD///XmgIAABf+AgAARKfD///H8AIAAEY/QgAGCcoCAAAjKgIABDT9w
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 09:31:47 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmpkkeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZGbE9RHetyIoIg5mtVhbzO0+zW0xd/pjF YsaFqcwOzB5Llvxk8pi18wmLx60pBQHMUVw2Kak5mWWpRfp2CVwZHbdzC6ZxVax79pKlgfEL ZxcjJ4eEgInEjA1LWUFsIYF1jBInNvt3MXIB2YsZJSYtvsLYxcjBwSZgIdH9TxukRkTAVaLr +3RGEJtZQF7iwpI1TCC2sICTxJv3V1khapwlzt1oYoSw8yRmzl4OVsMioCpxecd/FhCbV8BX YtqbuywQuxaxSpzbNp0ZZBenQKDEnA/xIDWMAmIS309BzGcWEJe49WQ+E8TNAhJL9pxnhrBF JV4+/scKYStJrNh+CexkZgFNifW79CFaFSWmdD9kh1grKHFy5hOWCYyis5BMnYXQMQtJxywk HQsYWVYxihanFhfnphsZ6aUWZSYXF+fn6eWllmxiBEbMwS2/rXYwHnzueIhRgINRiYf3A//y CCHWxLLiytxDjBIczEoivBMEVkQI8aYkVlalFuXHF5XmpBYfYpTmYFES5zVbeT9cSCA9sSQ1 OzW1ILUIJsvEwSnVwJhw9pfxKs8jZRuLwn23/AkKCrh672Wwv6bPGf5vi/KWaze9vyLVKSLR mtclEbLV+cEMz0WcU24n3mtPtpvOY/9Sq3nzo/o3EsuavAuuzI0NOiFyKa2yfiofh/mTrIKm 56W1EkLhz4WWW63XnWvh8VHe54lEstHqHwV7hZ5P9i3pMV2UZJJ5T4mlOCPRUIu5qDgRALUk BUKUAgAA
Archived-At: <>
Cc: mmusic WG <>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Do we really need TCP/DTLS/SCTP proto field?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 09:32:33 -0000


>>To be clear, are you talking about clarifying text in _this_ draft, or elsewhere?
>Christer is talking about section 12.2 of the draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp. As the language stands right 
>now, it is not incorrect, but is slightly confusing, since it is talking about default candidates for all ICE 
>related offer/answer exchanges.  After ICE nomination process is completed, there is only one candidate 
>left, so there is no default. In session descriptions that describe the session after ICE nomination is complete
>only one candidate is present, so there is typically no confusion about what goes into the m= line, but this is 
>not spelled out in the draft. I will submit the PR and Christer can merge and resubmit the draft when he is back.


Also note that this is something that shall be clear in draft-ice-sip-sdp, because it's not SCTP-SDP specific. But, that's a separate issue.