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

[Flemming Andreasen <[e-mail]>]

On 3/18/13 9:03 PM, Andrew Allen wrote:
>
> Flemming
>
> What is the proposed way forward now?
>
> Does this have to go back to the WG and redo WGLC or is this something 
> that can be resolved without that?
>
I guess that depends on the discussion and where we end up. At worst, 
we'd redo WGLC on the ccap part - the rest of the document is unaffected.

> IMHO its a matter of getting the wording right. I don't see a problem 
> with continuing to use CCAP for this and having text that puts a 
> prohibition on using this to negotiate alternate IN types because this 
> would duplicate that capability already provided by ICE.
>
I think we are talking about more than just wording changes here, which 
is why I'd like more discussion. We'll start a new thread on it.

Thanks

-- Flemming


> Andrew
>
>
> *From*: Flemming Andreasen [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent*: Sunday, March 17, 2013 10:58 PM Central Standard Time
> *To*: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Cc*: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; 
> Andrew Allen; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] 
> <[e-mail]>
> *Subject*: Re: [MMUSIC] RE : I-D Action: 
> draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-04.txt
>
> As noted in my e-mail below, the Anaheim discussion was based on the 
> original draft-garcia-mmusic-sdp-misc-cap 
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-garcia-mmusic-sdp-misc-cap> 
> document, which did indeed position "ccap" as an alternative to ICE. 
> The 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-garcia-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps 
> which was adopted by the WG changed the wording to what is being 
> discussed now and was adopted by the WG.
>
> If people wanted to explicitly prevent this mechanism from being used 
> for IP4 and/or IP6 addresses, then I"m at a loss to understand why the 
> current wording was chosen and agreed to as well as to why a general 
> mechanism like "connection data capability" as part of the overall 
> capability negotiation framework was chosen and agreed to. However, in 
> spite of the document reviews, long completed WGLC, and the external 
> 3GPP dependency, it is obvious from the e-mail thread that more 
> discussion is needed on this, and hence we will have to deal with that 
> before we can progress the document.
>
> Thanks
>
> -- Flemming (MMUSIC co-chair)
>
>
> On 3/15/13 8:04 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>
>> I think this goes all the way back to IETF68, where an agreement was 
>> made to use ICE for future address type selection (deprecating ANAT).
>>
>> I couldn’t find a written statement in minutes on ccap being 
>> explicitly forbidden to express IP4 and/or IP6 addresses as 
>> alternatives – but my thought has been that alternative IP addresses 
>> may only be offered with ICE. This was also reflected in by 
>> Jean-Francois 
>> (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/current/msg07916.html) 
>> where he says ” As for proposing IPv4/IPv6 alternatives, ICE 
>> deprecates ANAT and is the preferred solution the WG has chosen so 
>> far per IETF#68. “
>>
>> Simo
>>
>>