Re: [MMUSIC] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729-04.txt> (Offer/Answer Considerations for G723 Annex A and G729 Annex B) to Proposed Standard

"Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)" <mperumal@cisco.com> Thu, 05 December 2013 04:13 UTC

Return-Path: <mperumal@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0934B1AE02B for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 20:13:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -13.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, J_CHICKENPOX_62=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mPWJ1ev73uXF for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 20:13:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C29711ADF6C for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 20:13:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=9352; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1386216830; x=1387426430; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=nwoERI8R1kWG7yx4ePDvpRCEH1FGrBKMBn4S9Zw6dGY=; b=AxjXUHN4Q9XDgpe14OnKjnosc1kz9rHbPITbAEE1bkbztkwJcGJoyOTy HYX07CqCBnAcsQRlTJQq9xN+colw3IxUekY1EJ8/Zlzk97BsKtCJ4v/Jm g3x9CkCP0RIkB13g31WHVGLWC/wREDpxSjNNGbcqk2qRPBpJVUkzXD1hY o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhwFAOH8n1KtJV2d/2dsb2JhbABZgwc4U7geToEaFnSCJQEBAQQBAQFrCwwEAgEIEQQBAQsZBAcnCxQJCAIEAQ0FCId6DcEvEwSOTTEHBoMagRMDiQqhHYFrgT6CKg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,830,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="289295355"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Dec 2013 04:13:48 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com [173.36.12.77]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rB54Dm35003686 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 5 Dec 2013 04:13:48 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.4.34]) by xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com ([173.36.12.77]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 22:13:47 -0600
From: "Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)" <mperumal@cisco.com>
To: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>, SM <sm@resistor.net>, Ari Keränen <ari.keranen@ericsson.com>
Thread-Topic: [MMUSIC] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729-04.txt> (Offer/Answer Considerations for G723 Annex A and G729 Annex B) to Proposed Standard
Thread-Index: AQHO8XBksVWA6H39DU+VrLLXgZIJHw==
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 04:13:46 +0000
Message-ID: <E721D8C6A2E1544DB2DEBC313AF54DE2243749E2@xmb-rcd-x02.cisco.com>
References: <20131030131748.6987.86198.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20131030185231.0ddfb7a8@resistor.net> <00a101ced981$77414d60$65c3e820$@co.in> <00ab01cee555$05f53560$11dfa020$@co.in> <6.2.5.6.2.20131119110213.0cb0dd40@resistor.net> <003301cee952$852cd120$8f867360$@co.in> <6.2.5.6.2.20131129000812.0bdaa088@resistor.net> <016d01ceed31$aa7a1130$ff6e3390$@co.in> <6.2.5.6.2.20131130003721.0d65a980@resistor.net> <E721D8C6A2E1544DB2DEBC313AF54DE22436AD4D@xmb-rcd-x02.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20131203011102.0db5d8c0@resistor.net> <E721D8C6A2E1544DB2DEBC313AF54DE2243737E1@xmb-rcd-x02.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20131204072722.0e064590@resistor.net> <E721D8C6A2E1544DB2DEBC313AF54DE22437429E@xmb-rcd-x02.cisco.com> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B0F23CB@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B0F23CB@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [72.163.208.144]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "Flemming Andreasen (fandreas)" <fandreas@cisco.com>, "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729-04.txt> (Offer/Answer Considerations for G723 Annex A and G729 Annex B) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 04:13:55 -0000

I see your point.

Our opinion was that an RFC that specifies the mapping of media type parameters with SDP and registers the media types with IANA should also describe its usage, especially with the offer/answer model (e.g, RFC435). In that sense we thought draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729 is an update to RFC4856.

Your opinion is that they should be delinked -- one RFC can register the media types and another RFC can describe the usage for the registered media types independently. I am fine with that. The abstract and introduction in draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729 can easily be changed to reflect it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Abstract:
   RFC4856 describes the annexa parameter for G723 and the annexb
   parameter for G729, G729D and G729E. However, the specification does
   not describe the offerer and answerer behavior when the value of the
   annexa or annexb parameter does not match in the Session Description
   protocol(SDP) offer and answer.  This document provides the offer/
   answer considerations for these parameters and updates RFC4856.

New Abstract:
   There are no specifications that describe the offerer and answerer 
   behavior when the value of the annexa parameter of G729 or the annexb 
   parameter of G729, G729D and G729E does not match in the Session 
   Description protocol(SDP) offer and answer. This document provides the 
   offer/answer considerations for these parameters.

Current Introduction:
   [RFC4856] describes the annexa parameter for G723 as follows:

      annexa: indicates that Annex A, voice activity detection, is used
      or preferred.  Permissible values are "yes" and "no" (without the
      quotes); "yes" is implied if this parameter is omitted.

   Also, [RFC4856] describes the annexb parameter for G729, G729D and
   G729E as follows:

      annexb: indicates that Annex B, voice activity detection, is used
      or preferred.  Permissible values are "yes" and "no" (without the
      quotes); "yes" is implied if this parameter is omitted.

   However, it does not have any normative statement for the case where
   the value of this parameter does not match in the SDP [RFC4566] offer
   and answer.  For example, if the offer has G729 with annexb=yes and
   the answer has G729 with annexb=no, it can be interpreted in two
   different ways:
   o  The offerer and answerer proceed as if G729 is negotiated with
      annexb=yes, or
   o  The offerer and answerer proceed as if G729 is negotiated with
      annexb=no.

   Since [RFC4856] does not state it clearly, various implementations
   have interpreted the offer/answer in their own ways, resulting in a
   different codec being chosen to call failure, when the parameter
   value does not match in the offer and answer.

   [RFC3264] requires SDP extensions that define new fmtp parameters to
   specify their proper interpretation in offer/answer.  But, [RFC4856]
   does not specify it for the Annex A flavor of G723 and the Annex B
   flavors of G729, G729D and G729E.

   This document describes the offer/answer considerations for these
   parameters and provides the necessary clarifications.

New Introduction:
   [RFC4856] describes the annexa parameter for G723 as follows:

      annexa: indicates that Annex A, voice activity detection, is used
      or preferred.  Permissible values are "yes" and "no" (without the
      quotes); "yes" is implied if this parameter is omitted.

   Also, [RFC4856] describes the annexb parameter for G729, G729D and
   G729E as follows:

      annexb: indicates that Annex B, voice activity detection, is used
      or preferred.  Permissible values are "yes" and "no" (without the
      quotes); "yes" is implied if this parameter is omitted.

   However, there is no specification describing the case where the value 
   of this parameter does not match in the SDP [RFC4566] offer and answer.  
   For example, if the offer has G729 with annexb=yes and the answer has 
   G729 with annexb=no, it can be interpreted in two different ways:
   o  The offerer and answerer proceed as if G729 is negotiated with
      annexb=yes, or
   o  The offerer and answerer proceed as if G729 is negotiated with
      annexb=no.

   Since this is not clearly stated, various implementations have interpreted 
   the offer/answer in their own ways, resulting in a different codec being 
   chosen to call failure, when the parameter value does not match in the 
   offer and answer.

   [RFC3264] requires SDP extensions that define new fmtp parameters to
   specify their proper interpretation in offer/answer. This document 
   describes the offer/answer considerations for these parameters and provides 
   the necessary clarifications.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Do they address your concerns?

Muthu

|-----Original Message-----
|From: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) [mailto:keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com]
|Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 12:57 AM
|To: Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal); SM; Ari Keränen
|Cc: Flemming Andreasen (fandreas); mmusic@ietf.org
|Subject: RE: [MMUSIC] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729-04.txt> (Offer/Answer Considerations
|for G723 Annex A and G729 Annex B) to Proposed Standard
|
|I think the problem here originates with RFC 4856.
|
|All RFC 4856 does is create IANA registrations within SDP.
|
|It does not contain any requirements, except by implication, of how those registrations are used. An
|IANA registration, per se, cannot contain any normative requirements, all it is a list of assigned
|values.
|
|As such for the scope that RFC 4856 seeks to cover, it should not have been standards track.
|
|As it is now specified I do not believe draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729-04.txt updates RFC 4856. It
|does not change any of the IANA registrations, and that is pretty much all the scope of RFC 4856. If
|there is an update at all created by draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729, I suspect it is to RFC 3551 as
|these are the documents that actually specify such media types can be used within the SDP. However my
|preference would be to not have this document do any update.
|
|I do believe draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729 normatively impacts the usage of SDP in offer / answer
|usage and as such should be standards track.
|
|I believe the abstract of draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729 could be improved to reflect this.
|
|Regards
|
|Keith
|
|
|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: mmusic [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
|> Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)
|> Sent: 04 December 2013 17:08
|> To: SM; Ari Keränen
|> Cc: Flemming Andreasen (fandreas); mmusic@ietf.org
|> Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Last Call:
|> <draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729-04.txt> (Offer/Answer
|> Considerations for G723 Annex A and G729 Annex B) to Proposed Standard
|>
|> Hi SM,
|>
|> |-----Original Message-----
|> |From: SM [mailto:sm@resistor.net]
|> |Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 9:41 PM
|> |To: Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal); Ari Keränen
|> |Cc: Flemming Andreasen (fandreas); mmusic@ietf.org
|> |Subject: RE: [MMUSIC] Last Call:
|> |<draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729-04.txt> (Offer/Answer
|> Considerations
|> |for G723 Annex A and G729 Annex B) to Proposed Standard
|> |
|> |Hi Muthu,
|> |At 22:28 03-12-2013, Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal) wrote:
|> |>Sorry, not clear to me. Can you provide some examples?
|> |
|> |As an example:
|> |
|> |   "The reproduction of the [RFC4695] IANA considerations
|> section appears
|> |    directly below.
|> |
|> |    This section makes a series of requests to IANA.  The IANA has
|> |    completed registration/assignments of the below requests."
|> |
|> |Please note that I picked one at random.
|> |
|> |>Also, draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-g723-g729-04 doesn't need any
|> IANA action
|> |>(see the IANA Considerations section). So, why should it be
|> published
|> |>as an Informational RFC?
|> |
|> |The issue (using the word loosely) is that the draft is
|> referring to a
|> |registration request in Section 1.1 of RFC 4856 which is about IANA
|> |Considerations.
|>
|> Yes, is referring to that section of RFC4856. However, the
|> issue is not the registration itself -- it is to do with the
|> missing offer/answer considerations for the registered media
|> parameters that impact interoperability. As an example,
|> RFC4352 registers AMR-WB+ and then describes the offer/answer
|> model considerations for the parameters it registers.
|>
|> |My argument is that the working group has not provide an explanation
|> |about why the proposal should be published on the Standards Track.
|> |Instead of objecting to the publication as a RFC I suggested
|> publishing
|> |the proposal as an Informational RFC.
|>
|> I don't think publishing it as an Informational RFC would
|> improve interoperability.
|>
|> Muthu
|>
|> |
|> |Regards,
|> |-sm
|>
|> _______________________________________________
|> mmusic mailing list
|> mmusic@ietf.org
|> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
|>