Re: [MMUSIC] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-misc-cap-00.txt

[<[e-mail]>]

>The reason I query this is because of the c-line negotiation mechanism,
>which introduces a new way of negotiation between IPv4 and IPv6, in
>contradiction to the outcome of IETF#68, when there was consensus to use
>ICE as the basis, rather than ANAT or SDP capability negotiation (and
>leading to the deprecation of ANAT in the approved ICE draft). Although
>I was not present in Stockholm, it is clear from the minutes that this
>issue was opened up again, but with no consensus. Therefore, after 8
>months silence on the subject, it was a complete surprise to me to see a
>WG draft with a cap-neg-based mechanism for IPv4/IPv6 negotiation.

Although the ccap attribute could be also used for IPv4/v6 negotiation, that was not the use case we developed the draft for (we targeted for alternative IP/PSTN addresses using draft-mmusic-sdp-cs).

There are other drafts (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-mmusic-altc and http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hutton-mmusic-icemicrolite-01) which specifically target IPv4/v6 negotiation.

Simo

>So I would indeed appreciate a comment from the chairs on this.
>
>John
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail]
>> [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: 17 March 2010 12:23
>> To: Elwell, John; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Subject: RE: [MMUSIC] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-misc-cap-00.txt
>>
>>
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: ext Elwell, John [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> >Sent: 17 March, 2010 14:17
>> >To: Veikkolainen Simo (Nokia-D/Helsinki); [e-mail]
>> >Subject: RE: [MMUSIC] I-D
>> ACTION:draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-misc-cap-00.txt
>> >
>> >Simo,
>> >
>> >Thanks. However, there is no mention in the minutes about making it a
>> >work item. Furthermore, looking at the minutes for draft-boucadair-
>> >mmusic-ccap it clearly states there was no consensus. In
>> particular the
>> >minutes state some unanswered questions, including comparison of the
>> >ccap solution with re-using ICE. So I am interested in how
>> we got from
>> >this very inconclusive situation to adoption of the present
>> work item. I
>> >have been unable to find anything in the post-Stockholm mailing list
>> >archives or the Hiroshima minutes.
>>
>> It indeed seems that the Stockholm minutes do not say
>> anything about the adoption as WG item. However, I
>> double-checked right after the meeting with the chairs
>> whether my understanding about adoption was correct, and got
>> a confirmation. Maybe Jean-Francois could comment on this.
>>
>> Simo
>>
>> >John
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: [e-mail]
>> >> [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> >> Sent: 17 March 2010 11:59
>> >> To: Elwell, John; [e-mail]
>> >> Subject: RE: [MMUSIC] I-D
>> ACTION:draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-misc-cap-00.txt
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >-----Original Message-----
>> >> >From: [e-mail]
>> >> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
>> >> >Of ext Elwell, John
>> >> >Sent: 17 March, 2010 10:40
>> >> >To: [e-mail]
>> >> >Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] I-D
>> >> ACTION:draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-misc-cap-00.txt
>> >> >
>> >> >Can somebody please point me at the email thread that led to
>> >> adoption of
>> >> >this as a work item?
>> >>
>> >> Hello,
>> >> This was discussed and adopted as WG item already in
>> >> Stockholm meeting. We had a long discussion with the authors
>> >> of draft-boucadair-mmusic-ccap to align our work which is why
>> >> the submission as WG item comes so late.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Simo
>> >>
>> >> >Thanks,
>> >> >
>> >> >John
>> >> >
>> >> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> >> From: [e-mail]
>> >> >> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>> >> [e-mail]
>> >> >> Sent: 16 March 2010 22:15
>> >> >> To: [e-mail]
>> >> >> Cc: [e-mail]
>> >> >> Subject: [MMUSIC] I-D
>> ACTION:draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-misc-cap-00.txt
>> >> >>
>> >> >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line
>> Internet-Drafts
>> >> >> directories.
>> >> >> This draft is a work item of the Multiparty Multimedia
>> >> >> Session Control Working Group of the IETF.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 	Title		: Miscellaneous Capabilities
>> >> >> Negotiation in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)
>> >> >> 	Author(s)	: M. Garcia-Martin, S.
>> Veikkolainen, R. Gilman
>> >> >> 	Filename	: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-misc-cap-00.txt
>> >> >> 	Pages		: 17
>> >> >> 	Date		: 2010-3-1
>> >> >>
>> >> >>    SDP has been extended with a capability negotiation mechanism
>> >> >>    framework that allows the endpoints to negotiate transport
>> >> >> protocols
>> >> >>    and attributes.  This framework has been extended
>> with a Media
>> >> >>    capabilities negotiation mechanism that allows endpoints
>> >> >> to negotiate
>> >> >>    additional media-related capabilities.  This negotiation
>> >> >> is embedded
>> >> >>    into the widely-used SDP offer/answer procedures.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>    This memo extends the SDP capability negotiation
>> >> framework to allow
>> >> >>    endpoints to negotiate a number of miscellaneous SDP
>> >> capabilities.
>> >> >>    In particular, this memo provides a mechanism to
>> negotiate media
>> >> >>    titles ("i=" line for each media), connection data
>> >> ("c=" line), and
>> >> >>    media bandwidth ("b=" line).
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>> >> >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-misc
>> >> >> -cap-00.txt
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>> >> >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
>> >> >> implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII
>> version of the
>> >> >> Internet-Draft.
>> >> >>
>> >> >_______________________________________________
>> >> >mmusic mailing list
>> >> >[e-mail]
>> >> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>> >>
>>