Re: [MMUSIC] SDP Miscellaneous capabilities: port numbers

Andrew Allen <> Fri, 25 January 2013 11:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA7BE21F883C for <>; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 03:25:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.203
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id glfeVMBTGOOQ for <>; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 03:25:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B31DF21F87FB for <>; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 03:25:32 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: 0a41282f-b7f8c6d000004b29-de-51026ba16152
Received: from ( []) by (SBG) with SMTP id B4.FE.19241.1AB62015; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 05:25:21 -0600 (CST)
Received: from ([fe80::2494:a63d:e3:723b]) by ([fe80::c8f6:ae2e:c42b:3614%21]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 05:25:20 -0600
From: Andrew Allen <>
To: "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: SDP Miscellaneous capabilities: port numbers
Thread-Index: Ac360/A5tRLGpMVQTqKylTouellYSgAGqzUQ
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 11:25:20 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-CA, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD2338CF8B17XMB104ADSrimnet_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrJKsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsXC5Zyvo7swmynQ4G2vkMXU5Y9ZLM59usvi wOSxZMlPJo+7ty4xBTBFNTDaJCWWlAVnpufp29kk5uXllySWpCqkpBYn2yr5pKYn5igEFGWW JSZXKrhkFifnJGbmphYpKWSm2CqZKCkU5CQmp+am5pXYKiUWFKTmpSjZcSlgABugssw8hdS8 5PyUzLx0WyXPYH9dCwtTS11DJTvdhE6ejDMrzrMXzLGt2HtyMXMD4z+TLkZODgkBE4nrHzcz Q9hiEhfurWfrYuTiEBJYyShxoqebGcLZzChx49dfNpAqNgFlieW/ZzCC2CICaRJPnnxg7WLk 4BAWsJT4vpIFxBQRsJJYcqgWosJI4uHOFlYQm0VAVeL9k2lgNq+Ah8Snvg1MILaQQLjEmRdf 2UFsToEIiaYdDWBxRgFZid1nr4PZzALiEreezGeCuFNAYsme81A3i0q8fPyPFcJWlHjc0s0C UZ8v8aRhAgvELkGJkzOfsExgFJmFZNQsJGWzkJRBxHUkFuz+xAZha0ssW/iaGcY+c+AxE7L4 Akb2VYyCuRnFBmYGyXnJekWZuXp5qSWbGEHJw1FDfwfj2/cWhxgFOBiVeHg3pzMFCrEmlhVX 5h5ilOBgVhLhlTEBCvGmJFZWpRblxxeV5qQWH2IMAobWRGYp7uR8YGLLK4k3NjAgkqMkznv6 178AIYF0YBLLTk0tSC2CGcrEwQmylEtKpBiYilKLEktLMuJBCTO+GJgypYCp1MPsCbfDz1NR IjPjrpx245LXND8o0PpsFnPIgcNXPWQ+nnjvuq9x44oLJv2ZDkdrSl0Y3Kc/t1BhnnSWo0tF 3OrhjlCFD0xWE1L6/GblyDtYizxY0dEf6RQkf/vQLG3/Gj7B68/9O0/JK4TMnJ2/ZteFJs+u R1wrVUNF5SJ4BCs0uTgXiyqxFGckGmoxFxUnAgD+uAwQbAMAAA==
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] SDP Miscellaneous capabilities: port numbers
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 11:25:35 -0000

I am fine with the proposal.


From: [] On Behalf Of
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 3:18 AM
Subject: [MMUSIC] SDP Miscellaneous capabilities: port numbers

Dear WG,

An issue came up during review of . Figures 6 to 8 present an example SDP which uses the "a=ccap" connection address capability to present two alternative SDP configurations, one for IP based media, and the other for PSTN based media.

The issue is that these two alternative configurations use a different port number. However, there is currently no way to indicate alternative port numbers using the SDP capability negotiation mechanism.

For PSTN based media, the port number does not carry any meaningful information, and proposes to use a fixed port number (9, the discard port) which is to be ignored at reception. So, in this particular example we can add a note that since the alternative offered media uses a PSTN bearer, the port should be hardcoded to "9" by the implementer. However, for other types of media this does not work, nor is the example usable in the case where PSTN media is included in the "m=" line, and the address for alternative RTP based media using the "a=ccap" attribute.

In order to fix the issue, probably something like "port capability attribute" should be defined. This has been discussed in the past, but it has its own challenges (because of overlap with ICE, among other things).

The authors' proposal consist of adding a paragraph in the example description where we indicate that this particular example works because the CS description uses a well-known port number, but in general, the example is not applicable if the negotiated capabilities require a change in the port number.

Simo & Miguel

This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.