[MMUSIC] RFC 5432 on Quality of Service (QoS) Mechanism Selection in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)
rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Wed, 04 March 2009 00:01 UTC
Return-Path: <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: mmusic@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF3A43A6AB7; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 16:01:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -16.791
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.791 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.208, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6, USER_IN_DEF_WHITELIST=-15]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MxNMDG7pk-xk; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 16:01:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bosco.isi.edu (bosco.isi.edu [128.9.168.207]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 095623A6996; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 16:01:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by bosco.isi.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 659FF23D291; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 16:00:28 -0800 (PST)
To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org
From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Message-Id: <20090304000028.659FF23D291@bosco.isi.edu>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 16:00:28 -0800
Cc: mmusic@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: [MMUSIC] RFC 5432 on Quality of Service (QoS) Mechanism Selection in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 00:01:23 -0000
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 5432 Title: Quality of Service (QoS) Mechanism Selection in the Session Description Protocol (SDP) Author: J. Polk, S. Dhesikan, G. Camarillo Status: Standards Track Date: March 2009 Mailbox: jmpolk@cisco.com, sdhesika@cisco.com, Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com Pages: 9 Characters: 17614 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-mmusic-qos-identification-03.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5432.txt The offer/answer model for the Session Description Protocol (SDP) assumes that endpoints somehow establish the Quality of Service (QoS) required for the media streams they establish. Endpoints in closed environments typically agree out-of-band (e.g., using configuration information) regarding which QoS mechanism to use. However, on the Internet, there is more than one QoS service available. Consequently, there is a need for a mechanism to negotiate which QoS mechanism to use for a particular media stream. This document defines such a mechanism. [STANDARDS TRACK] This document is a product of the Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group of the IETF. This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Internet Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team USC/Information Sciences Institute