Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg

Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com> Thu, 10 March 2016 15:43 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 5916512D940 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:43:32 -0800 (PST)
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 Dr06GgvUStCl for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:43:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25E5312D93A for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:43:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=8840; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1457624609; x=1458834209; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ATunEBTNrb6MU1DSi7NuI8wN9+Nu/LzTEYbODKOwHrM=; b=S2Y+9yhDEKY9BaFbc6e1wWSgycOaY5iwGIzqxsRREtN8jbZMXboV+PR9 QAtL+eOUA3xufWXVmwe0LAEC0oYuFX2as1u3KVMMAT5UlrthYpUAxrvKd kQJJASulJ1qwb+ftszIkiNdT2uT0W+9jrvGRYLKfAvTxYhHwB/8YopVhw 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AkAgDnlOFW/49dJa1egz5SbbpeAQ2Bb?= =?us-ascii?q?RcKhSRKAoFBOBQBAQEBAQEBZCeEQgEBBAEBATU2GwsYCSUPAhYwBgEMBgIBAQW?= =?us-ascii?q?IGw69QQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEXhhiEQoQKEQGEWAWNM3SJFY14iS2FU?= =?us-ascii?q?o5qHgEBQoIDGYFmHi4BiCCBMgEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,316,1454976000"; d="scan'208";a="85057815"
Received: from rcdn-core-7.cisco.com ([173.37.93.143]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 10 Mar 2016 15:43:28 +0000
Received: from [10.98.149.198] (bxb-fandreas-8815.cisco.com [10.98.149.198]) by rcdn-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u2AFhRgI025548; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:43:28 GMT
To: Juergen Stoetzer-Bradler <juergen.stoetzer-bradler@nokia.com>, "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
References: <BBE9739C2C302046BD34B42713A1E2A22E88D533@ESESSMB105.ericsson.se> <566A16D2.1070108@nteczone.com> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8BADE22AB4@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <566AEB05.3040501@alum.mit.edu> <56AACC37.8090900@cisco.com> <56AB8596.9090304@alum.mit.edu> <56B12F48.409@cisco.com> <56B25159.70002@alum.mit.edu> <56B28240.7080206@cisco.com> <56B2DA8D.2000909@alum.mit.edu> <56B41A47.10901@nteczone.com> <56B63EF8.8080100@alum.mit.edu> <56B8BDA4.7060305@cisco.com> <56B8CBB5.7070507@alum.mit.edu> <56BCF47E.2000603@cisco.com> <56BDB7BC.1060104@alcatel-lucent.com> <56BDF1C6.9080707@cisco.com> <56C05B63.4030007@alcatel-lucent.com> <56C6156C.2070308@cisco.com> <56C71EF3.6040208@alcatel-lucent.com> <56C74FDE.4040902@cisco.com> <56CC5E9B.5060307@alcatel-lucent.com> <56D61704.70205@cisco.com> <56D84051.4080303@alcatel-lucent.com> <56D84FB7.4050109@cisco.com> <56DCC592.2060503@nteczone.com> <56DE4123.3030606@cisco.com> <56DED8E7.7060705@alcatel-lucent.com>
From: Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <56E1961F.601@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 10:43:27 -0500
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: <56DED8E7.7060705@alcatel-lucent.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/bmQAIJbu5WnI8tPLeBmN-1WfQ6U>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg
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: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:43:32 -0000

Hi Juergen

Thanks for putting together the summary. Option B(ii) below would indeed 
be my preference.

-- Flemming (as individual)

On 3/8/16 8:51 AM, Juergen Stoetzer-Bradler wrote:
> Flemming, Paul, Christian,
>
> Trying to summarize, as per my understanding following three main 
> options (A), (B) and (C) have been discussed in this email thread 
> regarding the IANA registration of SDP attributes.
>
> (A) "One new global IANA registry for data channel subprotocol 
> attributes, common for all data channel subprotocols":
> Similar to IANA's RTP source level attribute registry a global IANA 
> "data channel level" attribute registry could be created.
>     (i) Either, this registry could list all existing (and potential 
> future) attributes, and for each attribute could state if it could 
> also be used as dcsa embedded attribute associated with certain data 
> channel subprotocols. Each attribute within this registry might then 
> be associated with zero, one or multiple document references, where 
> each referenced document should describe this attribute's semantic and 
> usage for a specific subprotocol. (Which would not exclude one 
> document describing an attribute's semantic and usage for more than 
> just one data channel subprotocol.)
>     (ii) Or, this registry could list only those existing (and 
> potential future) attributes, which have already been identified as 
> data channel subprotocol attributes. All such already identified data 
> channel subprotocol attributes could be listed in that registry, 
> regardless of whether or not the usage of these attributes is specific 
> for data channel transport. Each attributes listed in this registry 
> could be associated with one or multiple document references. Each 
> such a reference could point to a document which could either describe 
> the data channel transport specific usage of this attribute for one or 
> several data channel subprotocols. Or such a reference could point to 
> the document, which defines this attribute in a data channel 
> independent / generic way (if usage of this attribute does not have 
> data channel transport specific aspects).
>     (iii) Or, this registry could only list those existing (and 
> potential future) attributes, which have already been identified as 
> data channel subprotocol attributes, and whose usage is indeed data 
> channel transport specific. Similar as in (ii) each attribute listed 
> in this registry could be associated with one or multiple document 
> references. Each such reference could point to a document which could 
> describe the data channel transport specific usage of this attribute 
> for one or several data channel subprotocols.
>
> (B) "For each data channel subprotocol one new dedicated attribute 
> registry":
> The document, which requests to add the data channel subprotocol's 
> identifier to the IANA WebSocket subprotocol name registry, could 
> additionally request to create a new IANA registry, specific for this 
> subprotocol, which could list all attributes, which can be used as 
> a=dcsa embedded attributes for this data channel subprotocol. Similar 
> as in (A) there seem to be (at least) two sub-options:
>     (i) Either, this subprotocol specific registry could list all 
> attributes, which could be used for this subprotocol (and have already 
> been identified as such) in case of data channel transport. Each such 
> attribute could then be associated with exactly one document 
> reference, where this reference either could point to a document, 
> which describes the data channel transport specific usage of this 
> attribute for this specific subprotocol, or could point to a document, 
> which specifies this attribute in a data channel independent way.
>     (ii) Or, this subprotocol specific registry could only list those 
> attributes, which could be used for this subprotocol, and which have a 
> data channel transport specific semantic. Each such attribute could 
> then be associated with a document describing this data channel 
> transport specific semantic for this subprotocol.
>
> (C) "No data channel specific registry(s) - re-use of the already 
> existing session and media level or media level only registries":
> The document, which requests to add the data channel subprotocol's 
> identifier to the IANA Websocket subprotocol id registry, could 
> additionally describe the usages of those attributes, which may be 
> used for this data channel subprotocol, and whose usages and/or 
> semantics have data channel transport specific aspects. However, if 
> those attributes did already exist prior to the creation of this data 
> channel subprotocol document, then the already existing IANA 
> registrations of those attributes would not be modified. If this data 
> channel subprotocol describing document introduced new subprotocol 
> specific attributes, then it could request these to be added to the 
> exiting media level only attribute registry. Subsequently, if a later 
> document introduces new attributes, which could also be used for that 
> subprotocol in the data channel transport case, then that later 
> document could describe this data channel subprotocol specific usage, 
> and could also add these attributes to the existing session and media 
> level or media level only attribute registry.
>
>
> If I am not mistaken then (A)(i) was the option which Paul initially 
> mentioned in this email thread. And Paul also mentioned a variant, 
> where the already existing attribute registries could be merged into 
> just one, where a new field could be added describing the attribute's 
> scope (which then could contain more than just one scope), and where 
> also 'data channel level' could be an attribute's scope. In such a 
> case different scopes might potentially refer to different documents.
> In his last email Christian did also refer to option (A), I think.
> Option (B) was mentioned by Flemming, where he expressed a preference 
> for (B)(i), as far as I understood.
> Option (C) is the one which is (to the most part) described in current 
> version 08 of draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg.
>
> Would there be another option, which I haven't described above?
>
> Would there be one (sub-)option, everybody could live with?
>
> Based on this discussion, if option (C) isn't agreeable, then I myself 
> would prefer option (B), with a tendency to (B)(ii), as this might 
> provide more flexibility for implementations, which want to use an 
> attribute for a data channel subprotocol with its original (data 
> channel transport independent) semantic, also if this attribute has 
> not been added to the data channel subprotocol specific attribute 
> registry. And as I still think that most of those attributes would be 
> used transport protocol stack independently.
>
> Thanks again,
> Juergen
>
>
>
> On 08.03.2016 04:04, EXT Flemming Andreasen wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 3/6/16 7:04 PM, Christian Groves wrote:
>>> Hello Flemming and Juergen,
>>>
>>> ..snip..
>>>>> I agree that in such cases such new attributes could indeed be 
>>>>> added to corresponding data channel subprotocol specific attribute 
>>>>> registries, which then could refer to the document introducing 
>>>>> this new attribute.
>>>> Right - and for consistency I think it then makes sense to have all 
>>>> subprotocol-specific attributes registered there.
>>>>
>>>>> An alternative might be to only add such a new SDP attribute to 
>>>>> the generic IANA SDP attribute registry (which probably would be 
>>>>> done anyhow). I assume that the generic SDP attribute registry 
>>>>> would also refer to the document introducing this new attribute.
>>>>>
>>>> Either would work, however my preference would be a complete 
>>>> listing of attributes that have subprotocol specific meaning.
>>>>
>>>> I'd be interested in what other people think though
>>>
>>> From looking at the existing IANA registry 
>>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-parameters/sdp-parameters.xhtml
>>>
>>> It feels like we should take the approach for att-field (source 
>>> level) and define att-field (data channel).
>>>
>> Thanks for the feedback Christian. Just to be clear: We would need to 
>> allow for multiple entries per attribute, since different 
>> sub-protocols could each define sub-protocol specific behavior for an 
>> attribute.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> -- Flemming
>>
>>
>>> Regards, Christian
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> -- Flemming (with my individual hat on)
>>>>
>>>
>>> .
>>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
> .
>