IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MMUSIC] RE : I-D Action: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-04.txt

Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com> Thu, 14 March 2013 18:06 UTC

Return-Path: <jonathan@vidyo.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 4ED5F11E817C for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:06:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.918
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.918 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.680, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 s5e9HMtQwnOg for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:06:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout.myoutlookonline.com (mxout.myoutlookonline.com [64.95.72.252]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C7F611E8155 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:06:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout.myoutlookonline.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mxout.myoutlookonline.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C68B416982; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:12:33 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: by SpamTitan at mail.lan
Received: from HUB015.mail.lan (unknown [10.110.2.1]) by mxout.myoutlookonline.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40B92416B22; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:12:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from BE235.mail.lan ([10.110.32.235]) by HUB015.mail.lan ([10.110.17.15]) with mapi; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:06:23 -0400
From: Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com>
To: Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:06:24 -0400
Thread-Topic: [MMUSIC] RE : I-D Action: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-04.txt
Thread-Index: Ac4g3qMCFrP7fcmtQvavboZ7ZKvUFQ==
Message-ID: <DBB452AD-7443-4B45-A706-BC79442979BB@vidyo.com>
References: <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD2338D28C4F@XMB104ADS.rim.net> <E16D51F5-1DFC-4DAD-AE3A-12610AC9422A@vidyo.com> <5141DFF8.4050006@cisco.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EB7356863@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <5141EB56.9090103@cisco.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EB7356880@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <51420C3A.3040807@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <51420C3A.3040807@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DBB452AD74434B45A706BC79442979BBvidyocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] RE : I-D Action: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-04.txt
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: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 18:06:31 -0000

On Mar 14, 2013, at 1:43 PM, Flemming Andreasen wrote:

On 3/14/13 11:40 AM, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:
Re-,

What is important is the quality of produced documents. The content of the document is not frozen and unless I'm mistaken there is not IETF LC.

Correct.
What I understand from the text in the draft is: ccap is allowed to signal an IPv4@ and IPv6@ if ICE is not supported.

ccap is not prohibited from doing so in the absence of ICE, however as explained in the document
1) When the IETF Standard Track mechanism ICE is available, ccap MUST NOT signal an IPv4/IPV6 address alternative.
2) The draft does (intentionally) not provide a full solution for negotiating alternative IP-addresses since we have a Standards Track mechanism for doing so (ICE).

Hi, Fleming --

My understanding of the WG consensus -- and my interpretation of the text in the draft -- was stronger than this: ccap MUST NOT be used for the kinds of alternatives ICE can express, whether or not ICE is actually being used in a particular offer/answer.

If we're getting divergent interpretations of this document, we probably do need to update its text.

--
Jonathan Lennox
jonathan@vidyo.com<mailto:jonathan@vidyo.com>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email