Re: [MMUSIC] draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-07 SCTP SDP syntax question

[Christian Groves <[e-mail]>]

Hello Salvatore,

Thanks for the replies. Please see some comments below.

Regards, Christian

On 1/10/2014 5:29 PM, Salvatore Loreto wrote:
> Hi Christian,
>
> thanks a lot for reading and reviewing the draft
> see more in line
>
> On Sep 30, 2014, at 3:48 PM, Christian Groves <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> I seemed to have got cut and paste happy in 1) below. The "1*(SP sctp-fmt)" should only apply to "DTLS/SCTP".
>>
>> Christian
>>
>> On 30/09/2014 10:12 PM, Christian Groves wrote:
>>> Hello Salvatore,
>>>
>>> There seems to be several issues with the updated syntax:
>>>
>>> 1) Cl.4.1 Media Description: With the updated syntax the ability to have more than one usage of the SCTP association has been lost as "sctp-fmt" is a single value.
>
> <Sal>
> there have been several discussion about the ability to have more than one usage of the SCTP association,
> and has been agreed not to allow it.
> So each 'm' line describes a single SCTP association;  each association has only one single specify usage.
> </Sal>

[CNG] So how would I specify in SDP a scenario where BFCP uses a 
DTLS/SCTP association and MSRP uses a DTLS/SCTP association where they 
both use the same DTLS connection? Are these to be separate m-lines?
>
>
> ..snip..
>>> 3) Cl.4.1.2: There appears to be a formal space (SP) missing from the syntax between association-usage and max-message-size.
>>>
>>> sctpmap-attr = "a=fmtp:" association-usage [max-message-size]
>>>
>>> should be:
>>> sctpmap-attr = "a=fmtp:" association-usage [SP max-message-size]
>>>
>>> The current syntax allows an fmtp usage with no max-message-size parameter, e.g. "a=fmtp:bfcp". Should this be allowed?
> <Sal>
> this has been discussed back in April or May. It has been decided that the max-message-size parameter is optional.
> In the case it is not present the default value is 64K
> </Sal>
[CNG] I agree that the max-message-size parameter is optional, in that 
case an endpoint wouldn't specify the whole a=ftmp: line. It seems 
strange to allow the endpoint to specify half a line?

>>> 5) Cl.4.1.2: "If the parameter is not present, the implementation should provide a
>>> default, with a suggested value of 64K." Is this 64,000 or is 65,535 bytes?
[CNG] I think you skipped this?

>>> 7) Cl.10: How will this registry relate to the “WebSocket Subprotocol Name Registry” (http://www.iana.org/assignments/websocket/websocket.xml#subprotocol-name)?
> <Sal>
> It is not related. The 'association-usage' specifies how the SCTP association will be used.
> For example in the case of webrtc-datachannel value it would indicate how to pair certain streams,
> how to consider specific stream etc.
> as described in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol-08 and in
> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/rtcweb/draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel/
>
> the WebSocket Subprotocol Name Registry is used to populate the protocol field in the
> protocol field in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol-08#section-5
>
> </Sal>
[CNG] So if I use the SCTP association for "bfcp" then i'd need to 
document this in the new registry associated with the draft? and if I 
then used "bfcp" for webrtc-datachannel then i'd need to update the 
websocket registry. Two places for the same protocol?