Re: SDPng
Dirk Kutscher <dku@informatik.uni-bremen.de> Thu, 25 May 2000 10:50 UTC
Return-Path: <owner-confctrl>
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by zephyr.isi.edu (8.8.7/8.8.6) id DAA09298 for confctrl-outgoing; Thu, 25 May 2000 03:50:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from venera.isi.edu (venera.isi.edu [128.9.176.32]) by zephyr.isi.edu (8.8.7/8.8.6) with ESMTP id DAA09293 for <confctrl@zephyr.isi.edu>; Thu, 25 May 2000 03:50:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bettina.informatik.uni-bremen.de (bettina.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.3]) by venera.isi.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA11037 for <confctrl@ISI.EDU>; Thu, 25 May 2000 03:50:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from daemon.informatik.uni-bremen.de (daemon.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.218.45]) by bettina.informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.10.1/8.8.7) with ESMTP id e4PAomR04738; Thu, 25 May 2000 12:50:48 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: (from dku@localhost) by daemon.informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.7) id MAA16187; Thu, 25 May 2000 12:50:47 +0200 (MET DST)
To: Markus Buchhorn <markus@acsys.anu.edu.au>
Cc: confctrl@ISI.EDU, atmsdp@eng.fore.com
Subject: Re: SDPng
References: <3.0.32.20000525094336.010ba1c0@acsys.anu.edu.au>
From: Dirk Kutscher <dku@informatik.uni-bremen.de>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 12:50:47 +0200
In-Reply-To: Markus Buchhorn's message of Thu, 25 May 2000 09:43:37 +1000
Message-ID: <cd4s7mhpiw.fsf@daemon.informatik.uni-bremen.de>
Lines: 86
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 20.2
Sender: owner-confctrl@zephyr.isi.edu
Precedence: bulk
>>>>> "Markus" == Markus Buchhorn <markus@acsys.anu.edu.au> writes: Markus> Which group/who is looking at the next generation of SDP? Markus> (I think Mark Handley mentioned "some people call it SDPv2 Markus> and it's not really a v2"). I haven't seen any mailing Markus> lists under avt or mmusic (where it should be?) really Markus> discuss it. Markus, we have started a discussion about this about a year ago and submitted an ID called "Capability description for group cooperation". The draft has expired but you can grab an old copy at ftp://ftp.tzi.uni-bremen.de/doc/internet-drafts/draft-ott-mmusic-cap-00.txt The draft does not directly propose a concrete new SDP version but also deals with - a model for multimedia conferencing from a configuration point of view: We used the notion of "components" that are basically applications within a multimedia conference and can be mapped to the final media streams. The way components can be implemented depends on the capabilities of end-systems and preferences of users, what we called "potential configurations". - the relation between "session description" and capability negotiation: In a capability negotiation process potential configurations are taken as input for a function that finally yields a usable "actual configuration", that is an element of a session description. - algorithms for capability negotiation and mapping to/from SDP: We have presented an algorithm that allows capability negotiation without having to know the semantics of individual descriptions, which is important for extensibility. The motivation for this was the observation that, while SDP has not been designed to support capability negotiation, the dynamic negotiation of session parameters is considered an important functionality for conferencing/IP-telephony and that there are usage scenarios where protocols like SIP actually do rely on capability negotiation involving SDP. It is obvious that negotiating capabilities and describing session parametes are closely related and that it is probably useful to have a common representation for both purposes, so this is one reason why developing a "new" SDP has been considered. Other reasons may be the various proposals of extending SDP that have been presented and that suggest that, while SDP provides some extension mechanisms, it lacks the required extensiblity to support all this conveniently. Because of the capability negotiation aspect a few more questions arise as it would have been the case for finding a new representation for session descriptions. For example, it has been noted that capability negotiation has a considerable overlap to content negotiation, i.e. RFC2703 and RFC2533. It makes sense to build upon this work but it is also important to adhere to the "keep it simple" requirement, one of the reasons being the one you mention below: Markus> I'd be interested to see what is being done. One idea I Markus> wanted to canvas was the use of XML in Markus> session/content/transport description, with appropriate Markus> DTD's being created as necessary. Nicely extensible and Markus> pigeon-hole-able and container-able :-). However, it can Markus> be a bit heavy and SAP puts some strong recommendations on Markus> bandwidth usage and packet sizes. OTOH XML is Markus> compressible (e.g. wbxml) in special cases. I think, before thinking of DTDs, schemata and concrete representations we have to address the fundamental questions of how the model for capability negotiation and session decription should look like etc. It should then be comparatively easy to find one (or more) appropriate representation syntaxes, maybe even an XML-based one. Discussion about all this is of course welcome. -- Dirk