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

"Stach, Thomas" <> Thu, 14 March 2013 18:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46C0511E80E9 for <>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:16:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.298
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MANGLED_LOAN=2.3]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bwq9dhljpHwB for <>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:16:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0A6E11E81C6 for <>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:16:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Server) with ESMTP id F13F423F04C7; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 19:16:54 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 19:16:54 +0100
From: "Stach, Thomas" <>
To: Andrew Allen <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [MMUSIC] RE : I-D Action: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-04.txt
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 18:16:54 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: de-AT, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F81CEE99482EFE438DAE2A652361EE12067976D4MCHP04MSXglobal_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] RE : I-D Action: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-04.txt
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: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 18:16:57 -0000

This is also my understanding
... although my initially proposed text does not reflect this correctly.


Von: [] Im Auftrag von Andrew Allen
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. März 2013 14:10
Betreff: Re: [MMUSIC] RE : I-D Action: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-04.txt

My understanding also was that we agreed that CCAP was not an alternative to ICE.

From: Jonathan Lennox []
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 01:06 PM Central Standard Time
To: Flemming Andreasen <>
Cc: <>; Andrew Allen; <>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] RE : I-D Action: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-04.txt

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

On 3/14/13 11:40 AM,<> wrote:

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.

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<>

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.