Re: [MMUSIC] SDP Extensions MUST specify their Multiplexing Behavior from now on
"Ali C. Begen" <acbegen@gmail.com> Fri, 04 December 2015 21:38 UTC
Return-Path: <acbegen@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74C811A911D for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:38:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 A_RBm5sedhmK for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:38:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi0-x231.google.com (mail-oi0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40E5D1A9118 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:38:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by oige206 with SMTP id e206so73870968oig.2 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Fri, 04 Dec 2015 13:38:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=xQjeMcBn7UFXATcyrsf1+J/k8PfWo03h4ka4XOZK9H8=; b=o2P0+v8S8gpOriwj3XeMr+Rn+ef7CdOJy77pAk5Qn0qTaVcjjl/8zUQApTM1njMrN0 bJ1rBk/nPXf0G1LDJM8j6ViFZu8REgJORDKPxBDRDS13D57FBHe+Tafl++ZqV4DpvQIX Pek9TE0Zf2h1woFqT8hXLjK4bLPjrsdH0Ql/r3d5Xf3cFcXj4Y/X/tRadjpuFULZ+Itx QUhBufQGt1B6o0TWlqZYa19k9oR3UkrIRfH34xz+O394nvYVkwSrBidHQO0lh3mrinq4 xEIVoCHd0y2T3A/OxUFWrN/5XBxYCY3Q8DDK/ujLECv6nlujcxtyWaHLRSSMMATY9kPk JCnw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.202.204.5 with SMTP id c5mr14166699oig.93.1449265107610; Fri, 04 Dec 2015 13:38:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.202.228.78 with HTTP; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:38:27 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <56620629.5030801@cisco.com>
References: <54C27702.4020409@cisco.com> <56620629.5030801@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 23:38:27 +0200
Message-ID: <CAG371noS15e+BFrwX5QAa-quB7hUFQpoqNvdXtJVGqvB4yU3XQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Ali C. Begen" <acbegen@gmail.com>
To: Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1137bc46ecb3ed052619538f"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/cj0AFwQZGfDlbLcv7RavZzhObw8>
Cc: Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com>, mmusic <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] SDP Extensions MUST specify their Multiplexing Behavior from now on
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 21:38:30 -0000
I will be happy to get the text updates for 4566bis from the mux/bundle folks. Please post it to the list to get an agreement so I can make the changes. -acbegen On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 11:31 PM, Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com> wrote: > Following up on this old thread: > > First of all, I think we need to add a bit more text on the bundle/mux > point for extensions in 4566bis. > > Secondly, at IETF90, we also discussed (and concluded) that extensions > should also state if they have any source-specific behavior [RFC5576] (see > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/minutes/minutes-90-mmusic#h.c5g3wcovj2qp). > As far as I know, we didn't change this point at IETF91, but the minutes > are silent on it, so I wanted to check what people think here again. > > Thanks > > -- Flemming > > > > On 1/23/15 11:29 AM, Flemming Andreasen wrote: > >> Greetings >> >> This note is to draw people's attention to the decision we made at IETF >> 91 around how to deal with multiplexing behavior in SDP extensions going >> forward (see >> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/minutes/minutes-91-mmusic#h.pv0omanks9xq >> ). >> >> To recap, we agreed that >> 1) RFC4566bis will add procedures and requirements around new SDP >> extensions needing to specify multiplexing behavior. >> >> 2) Given that 4566bis is still being worked on and we need to freeze the >> mux draft ( >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes-07) at >> this point, any SDP related draft seeking publication from here on and not >> already covered by the mux-attribute draft will have to specify its mux >> behavior in accordance with the mux-attributes draft. >> >> 3) Once RFC4566bis gets published, mux-behavior specification procedures >> and requirements will follow that document. >> >> Thanks >> >> -- Ari & Flemming (MMUSIC co-chairs) >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mmusic mailing list >> mmusic@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic >> >> >
- [MMUSIC] SDP Extensions MUST specify their Multip… Flemming Andreasen
- Re: [MMUSIC] SDP Extensions MUST specify their Mu… Flemming Andreasen
- Re: [MMUSIC] SDP Extensions MUST specify their Mu… Ali C. Begen