Re: [MMUSIC] New draft: draft-holmberg-mmusic-sdp-dtls-00

["GUBALLA, JENS (JENS)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Christer,

Especially regarding section 4:

What is described as "re-establishment" always implies changing the local
transport address and creating a new DTLS association. Thus there are two
distinct DTLS associations involved here, and thus "re-establishment of a
DTLS association" is misleading, IMO.

It might be better to say: "establishment of a new DTLS association which is
associated to the same/existing multimedia session".

Best regards,
Jens

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mmusic [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Christer
Holmberg
> Sent: Montag, 15. Juni 2015 19:58
> To: mmusic
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] New draft: draft-holmberg-mmusic-sdp-dtls-00
> 
> And the document link:
> 
> 
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-holmberg-mmusic-sdp-dtls-00.txt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: mmusic [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Christer
Holmberg
> Sent: 15 June 2015 19:31
> To: mmusic
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: [MMUSIC] New draft: draft-holmberg-mmusic-sdp-dtls-00
> 
> 
> 
> Hi DTLS lovers,
> 
> 
> 
> We have put together the initial version of a draft that defines the SDP
> Offer/Answer procedures for DTLS, putting much focus on the criteria and
> procedures associated with re-establishment of a DTLS association - when
and
> how it can be done.
> 
> 
> 
> The issue initially came up during the SCTP-SDP discussions, and the idea
was
> to address it in the SCTP-SDP draft. However, as the issue is general, we
> decided to write a separate draft, which DTLS usage specifications then
can
> refer.
> 
> 
> 
> There is still work to do, but we wanted to submit the initial version as
soon
> as possible, in order to have list discussions etc before Prague.
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> 
> Christer