Re: [MMUSIC] IANA registration of SDP attributes

Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com> Tue, 22 March 2016 19:11 UTC

Return-Path: <fandreas@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A31DE12D7D6 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 12:11:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 Oq63mXdrQiNM for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 12:11:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A178512D7EE for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 12:11:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=9522; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1458673889; x=1459883489; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ywbAZYEZ2wPCb4F62Cv0kvZv9BtLvuYxjgf/LK6VS2Y=; b=FSbVc812ktLe2RBT7RaovpaCPtI95/AJ5U4uPYyQHD9qp0iKlcuVFIej Nd5CeiESQhSoUlOwBSevVjgvf0ue7AYO6ZY78b1yZoDWZcR/+S/nELTiv gN8Mu2qw9PprME/dBkjPTkCOpJExV7GUpMZY//OTkWkipEVUmUzaKtQss w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AjAgB+mPFW/4oNJK1egzNTerpHAQ2Bc?= =?us-ascii?q?BcKhSJKAoFMOBQBAQEBAQEBZCeEQQEBAQMBAQEBNTYKBgsLGAkWDwkDAgECARU?= =?us-ascii?q?wBgEMBgIBAYgbCA7BFQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARQEhh6ERIoSAQSNO4ocj?= =?us-ascii?q?gSBZYdQhVSGDoh5HgEBQoQBIC6KBgEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,378,1454976000"; d="scan'208";a="250928338"
Received: from alln-core-5.cisco.com ([173.36.13.138]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 22 Mar 2016 19:11:06 +0000
Received: from [10.98.149.198] (bxb-fandreas-8815.cisco.com [10.98.149.198]) by alln-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u2MJB52t014336; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 19:11:05 GMT
To: Christian Groves <Christian.Groves@nteczone.com>, mmusic@ietf.org, Bo Burman <bo.burman@ericsson.com>
References: <56E1C193.1050308@alum.mit.edu> <56E2EF31.2020808@alcatel-lucent.com> <56E2F67D.7060005@alum.mit.edu> <56EE0AA1.3030502@nteczone.com> <56EEE286.5090505@alum.mit.edu> <56F09E03.5020200@nteczone.com>
From: Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <56F198C9.3080604@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 15:11:05 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56F09E03.5020200@nteczone.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/U7mfwpsnt4HeNM4faEiJjyz_z2U>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] IANA registration of SDP attributes
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 19:11:31 -0000


On 3/21/16 9:21 PM, Christian Groves wrote:
> Hello Paul,
>
> Yes I think it is fuzzy. draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp is using a=setup 
> for SCTP, by the definition below it would need to update the registry 
> to add a reference. There's probably other attributes where this is 
> the case also (e.g. a=connection). For consistency all the existing 
> attributes would need to be checked when reformatting the registry.
>
> I do agree that it would be nice to have a link from each SDP 
> attribute to the RFCs that are using it but I think the genie is out 
> of the bottle on this one.
>
> With the light agenda maybe this is something to discuss in Argentina?
>
Do we have a volunteer to drive the discussion there ?

Thanks

-- Flemming

> Regards, Christian
>
> On 21/03/2016 4:48 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>> On 3/19/16 10:27 PM, Christian Groves wrote:
>>> With the current registry don't only documents that introduce NEW
>>> attributes get included in the registry?
>>>
>>> dcsa (MSRP) and dcsa (BFCP) don't define new attributes they use setup.
>>> This is similar to the fact that multiple protocols at the media level
>>> use a=setup but we don't add references to them in the registry.
>>>
>>> So do we now say that if a draft/RFC uses an existing media level
>>> attribute in a DCSA that must be added to the registry with a dcsa
>>> indication?
>>
>> ISTM that a document that broadens the applicability of an attribute 
>> ought to be recorded in the registry.
>>
>> I expect that this is a bit fuzzy. For instance, the use of setup 
>> with TCP was defined. If a new proto of 'TCP/FOO' is defined that 
>> runs over TCP, and simply uses setup for establishing the TCP part, 
>> then maybe it doesn't need to be recorded in the registry.
>>
>> But if setup is used for something other than TCP, or also used for 
>> some semantic over and above its use for TCP, then it surely ought to 
>> be recorded. (For instance, when it is used to control initialization 
>> of some other protocol over TCP.)
>>
>> I expect that this is less than clear, and may be controversial. 
>> Seems to need more discussion.
>>
>>     Thanks,
>>     Paul
>>
>>> Regards, Christian
>>>
>>> On 12/03/2016 3:46 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>>>> On 3/11/16 11:15 AM, Juergen Stoetzer-Bradler wrote:
>>>>> Paul,
>>>>>
>>>>> The last alternative would have the advantage that different 
>>>>> subprotocol
>>>>> documents could be referenced for the same attribute. Like e.g. 
>>>>> for the
>>>>> setup attribute (if there were BFCP over data channel transport 
>>>>> specific
>>>>> aspects):
>>>>>
>>>>> *SDP Name*     *Level(s)*     *Reference(s)*
>>>>> accept-types
>>>>>     media,
>>>>> dcsa(MSRP)
>>>>>     [RFC4975]
>>>>> [draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel]
>>>>> cat
>>>>>     session
>>>>>     [RFC4566]
>>>>> fmtp
>>>>>     media,source     [RFC4566][RFC5576]
>>>>> mediaclk
>>>>>     session,media,source
>>>>>     [RFC7273]
>>>>> ptime
>>>>>     media
>>>>>     [RFC4566]
>>>>> recvonly
>>>>>     session,media,
>>>>> dcsa(MSRP)
>>>>>     [RFC4566][RFC4975]
>>>>> [draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel]
>>>>> setup
>>>>>     session, media
>>>>> dcsa(MSRP)
>>>>> dcsa(BFCP)
>>>>>     [RFC4145]
>>>>> [draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel]
>>>>> [draft-schwarz-mmusic-bfcp-usage-data-channel]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Therefore I'd be in favor of your last alternative.
>>>>
>>>> Let's see what other comments we get, especially from Flemming.
>>>>
>>>> Then, if this is preferred direction we can work on refining it.
>>>>
>>>>     Thanks,
>>>>     Paul
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10.03.2016 19:48, EXT Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>>>>>> [splitting off from the thread on data-channel-sdpneg]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Currently IANA has five(!) separate registries for sdp attributes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> att-field (session level)
>>>>>> att-field (both session and media level)
>>>>>> att-field (media level only)
>>>>>> att-field (source level)
>>>>>> att-field (unknown level)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They all have the same format:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Type**
>>>>>> *     *SDP Name**
>>>>>> *     *Reference**
>>>>>> *
>>>>>> att-field (session level)     cat     [RFC4566]
>>>>>> att-field (both session and media level)     recvonly
>>>>>>     [RFC4566]
>>>>>> att-field (both session and media level)     mediaclk
>>>>>>     [RFC7273]
>>>>>> att-field (media level only)     accept-types
>>>>>>     [RFC4975]
>>>>>> att-field (media level only)     fmtp
>>>>>>     [RFC4566]
>>>>>> att-field (source level)     fmtp
>>>>>>     [RFC5576]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This format is a pain, because it is hard to look an attribute up if
>>>>>> you don't know at what level(s) it is valid. It also has the 
>>>>>> potential
>>>>>> to allow an attribute name to be registered for unrelated 
>>>>>> purposes if
>>>>>> the type is different. (IMO that would be bad.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A long time ago (several years now), as part of the 4566bis work, I
>>>>>> proposed that these tables be merged into one. It was my impression
>>>>>> that this was agreed and would be done. But I don't recall any
>>>>>> agreement on the logistics of doing so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My thought was that the combined table would look like:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *SDP Name*     *Level(s)*     *Reference(s)*
>>>>>> accept-types
>>>>>>     media
>>>>>>     [RFC4975]
>>>>>> cat
>>>>>>     session
>>>>>>     [RFC4566]
>>>>>> fmtp
>>>>>>     media,source     [RFC4566][RFC5576]
>>>>>> mediaclk
>>>>>>     session,media,source
>>>>>>     [RFC7273]
>>>>>> ptime
>>>>>>     media
>>>>>>     [RFC4566]
>>>>>> recvonly
>>>>>>     session,media
>>>>>>     [RFC4566]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then we get to data channel attributes. My thought is to incorporate
>>>>>> them into this table structure, as yet another "level". E.g.,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *SDP Name*     *Level(s)*     *Reference(s)*
>>>>>> accept-types
>>>>>>     media,dcsa
>>>>>>     [RFC4975][draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel]
>>>>>> cat
>>>>>>     session
>>>>>>     [RFC4566]
>>>>>> fmtp
>>>>>>     media,source     [RFC4566][RFC5576]
>>>>>> mediaclk
>>>>>>     session,media,source
>>>>>>     [RFC7273]
>>>>>> ptime
>>>>>>     media
>>>>>>     [RFC4566]
>>>>>> recvonly
>>>>>>     session,media,dcsa
>>>>>> [RFC4566][RFC4975][draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (And this could also be extended for websockets if somebody 
>>>>>> proposes a
>>>>>> way to negotiate attributes for data channels too.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Using this format, if you want to know more than the name and the
>>>>>> level(s) at which it can be used you need to consult the references.
>>>>>> And when there are multiple references you don't know which 
>>>>>> one(s) you
>>>>>> need to consult. This can be "fixed" by including more information
>>>>>> from the reference into the registry. Conversely, we could strip it
>>>>>> down further and remove the levels from the registry - so you 
>>>>>> need to
>>>>>> consult the references for that too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For instance, if we wanted to simplify finding the right 
>>>>>> reference for
>>>>>> the level you are interested in, we could do:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *SDP Name*     *Level(s)*     *Reference(s)*
>>>>>> accept-types
>>>>>>     media,
>>>>>> dcsa
>>>>>>     [RFC4975]
>>>>>> [draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel]
>>>>>> cat
>>>>>>     session
>>>>>>     [RFC4566]
>>>>>> fmtp
>>>>>>     media,source     [RFC4566][RFC5576]
>>>>>> mediaclk
>>>>>>     session,media,source
>>>>>>     [RFC7273]
>>>>>> ptime
>>>>>>     media
>>>>>>     [RFC4566]
>>>>>> recvonly
>>>>>>     session,media,
>>>>>> dcsa
>>>>>>     [RFC4566][RFC4975]
>>>>>> [draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or we could go further, and break the dcsa level down by 
>>>>>> subprotocol:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *SDP Name*     *Level(s)*     *Reference(s)*
>>>>>> accept-types
>>>>>>     media,
>>>>>> dcsa(MSRP)
>>>>>>     [RFC4975]
>>>>>> [draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel]
>>>>>> cat
>>>>>>     session
>>>>>>     [RFC4566]
>>>>>> fmtp
>>>>>>     media,source     [RFC4566][RFC5576]
>>>>>> mediaclk
>>>>>>     session,media,source
>>>>>>     [RFC7273]
>>>>>> ptime
>>>>>>     media
>>>>>>     [RFC4566]
>>>>>> recvonly
>>>>>>     session,media,
>>>>>> dcsa(MSRP)
>>>>>>     [RFC4566][RFC4975]
>>>>>> [draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Thanks,
>>>>>>     Paul
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> mmusic mailing list
>>>>>> mmusic@ietf.org
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> mmusic mailing list
>>>>> mmusic@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> mmusic mailing list
>>>> mmusic@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mmusic mailing list
>>> mmusic@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mmusic mailing list
>> mmusic@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>>
>
> .
>