Re: [MMUSIC] draft-ejzak-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

>> * Section 5.1.1.1
>> 
>> The following seems overly stringent:
>> 
>>     The SDP answer shall include the exact same attribute line to
>>     indicate acceptance of the data channel instance.
>> 
>> This seems to require a byte-by-byte copy. That precludes 
>> independently generating an equivalent attribute. ISTM it is 
>> sufficient to require the attribute in the answer to meet the same 
>> requirements as that in the offer, and to have the same channel 
>> number. (And label???)
>
> <Raju>
> Correct. In theory a simple answer of "a=dcamp:2" is sufficient (especially since we are now going to 
> make "subprotocol" as optional) to indicating acceptance of that particular data channel.
> However, to make it consistent with rest of the SDP style, we will change the text to indicate subprotocol 
> parameter MUST be included in answer with an optional label (matching or non-matching). They may appear in any order.

I am not sure whether you need to say anything about this.

How to create the answer is a generic text, and there is already procedure text in section 5.1.1 draft-ejzak-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-01 for this.

Regards,

Christer