IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MMUSIC] Feedback requested on requirements

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Wed, 24 April 2013 22:48 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
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 E588821F8E9A for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:48:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.266
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.266 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.171, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KJ3deFNLUvrI for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:48:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5360C21F8DCF for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:48:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.27]) by qmta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id TqqH1l00D0bG4ec53yojEp; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 22:48:43 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id Tyoi1l01C3ZTu2S3PyoimD; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 22:48:43 +0000
Message-ID: <5178614A.1090207@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 18:48:42 -0400
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mmusic@ietf.org
References: <201304231530.r3NFU9mB3237170@shell01.TheWorld.com> <CABkgnnX__cZddWRm1AX1ie6-W7a=oyprAmpZ5s-2=nTOMqGkxA@mail.gmail.com> <201304231858.r3NIwQYx3263944@shell01.TheWorld.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C35D1A5@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C35D1A5@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1366843723; bh=8KqSLT/YiDF/QIaBZP4ah5Hr/hRwRduSOPQ1URNRL+A=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=WHp6M5H3qkkZVEAAwh4JpHSZU3g3UbYIpULKbXbYadu/E5KPLXW+3Oh+OHy5+hoLf oy9SBDzgqD5CB+YpKNpJDHlTP6ciRDjfFgJXloSCATJS/dzMzFMTkLLwGek9Z8NZ5r 71ufSQ39Twz2axflUjNekcHo1Oh47359rbIR/MdKjS2Yr+vdVa/wMSqsVzYO/Dh8Qe dqqgQd7KUaW7ESweM7QStwa4HK9GqDP8Em+nOMacfYQJwykEaXaOjzIunNVuW6cgZU y3dlIosqY7ErWlr7z44qnV8zj3Mlwz/Z72vdNG+QmJYkL8DLqeWDQt3mUJ2nbrzJHP OwD/bcV/xy53g==
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Feedback requested on requirements
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 22:48:45 -0000

On 4/24/13 1:36 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:

>> On 23 April 2013 08:30, Dale R. Worley <worley@ariadne.com> wrote:
>>>     non-DES C5  SBCs generally pass through attributes that they do not
>>>        understand.  SBCs generally pass through codec specifications that
>>>        they do not understand, even if they are configured to transcode
>>>        certain specific codecs.
>>
>> I'm not sure how to parse this.  Is that a double-negative or just two
>> negatives for emphasis?
>>
>> Do you intend to say that the solution should NOT rely on new
>> attributes because SBCs will suppress them, or that the solution is
>> permitted to use new attributes because SBCs are expected to pass
>> attributes.
>
> I mean the latter.  The intended parsing is:
>
>      (non-DES) C5  SBCs generally pass through attributes that they do not...

What evidence do you have to support this assertion?
AFAIK this is far from universally true.

	Thanks,
	Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email