[MMUSIC] comments on draft-even-mmusic-application-token-01

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Sun, 27 October 2013 18:35 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 4A15D11E8153 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 11:35:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.347
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.416, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_54=0.6, 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 ZGT+Rr5ev0oT for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 11:35:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta04.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta04.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B47D11E81A1 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 11:35:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta04.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.35]) by qmta04.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id iJQk1m0030ldTLk54JbAhJ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 18:35:10 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta04.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id iJb91m0083ZTu2S01Jb9B0; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 18:35:09 +0000
Message-ID: <526D5CDD.40805@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 14:35:09 -0400
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IETF MMUSIC WG <mmusic@ietf.org>
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=1382898910; bh=fLxnSeoj+emv/3REpeRcWC0CH1Q2YmFzsyyA2SkwFJQ=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=ppiheScpt5BQWRubyeR15N53wOL4GE9dyV0FqYnsPstw4aTAtoeuiEdfD5KQy4SyC nah3OnRQS0q7ljDePTuCJpet4V0cl+m2g6W/QArbxZfhIoUHchW2MexC553EI2QEqP fDWe0PabJ8ga+HJFcdps/Rh/RcDUNqzn3/B+4MoKOdaXfDIV7gX72sGbE1J2N5dFQc pJ9xEDdfM1IFw2I8QELlEJ95T4/VRaURrUDjcP9tUszAbdbJ+w3wcnzRvtGpt1Y9t6 bS2gwbh2QL7/lws4NmI7dIPUZSn3FeXsK3vPnL4472goDDUXH9ih8WLMOPpNZYl5RT l8DviejQIm63g==
Cc: Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com>
Subject: [MMUSIC] comments on draft-even-mmusic-application-token-01
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: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 18:35:21 -0000

Hi. Doing my pre-meeting reading. A few comments on this. Otherwise it 
looks good to me.

Many examples use a=appid and a=recv-appid without the colon.

Section 3.1.3:

       appid-attribute = "recv-appID:" token

       ; The base definition of "attribute" is in [RFC4566].

       ; (It is the content of "a=" lines.)

The comments are spurious here - there is no attribute.

ISTM it would be helpful to have an explicit specification of how this 
relates to RTP. IIUC, its something like the following:

- an RTP session MAY have one or more appid tokens
- at any point in time each appid token maps to at most
   one stream (SSRC) within the session.
- *new* appid:ssrc mappings MAY be initialized via SDP
- new appid:ssrc mappings MAY be initialized via receipt
   of the new RTPC SDES message or header extension
- existing appid:ssrc mappings MAY be updated via
   receipt of the new RTCP SDES message or header extension.

I'm not sure about what is supposed to happen if a new O/A defines a 
mapping in conflict with an existing one. I *think* it probably is to be 
ignored.

	Thanks,
	Paul